Explore the vast range of titles available.

Environmental injustice can be expressed through lack of access to resources, unequal exposure to toxins, and limited access to knowledge about the unsustainable environmental practices that impact communities (Bullard 2018). The ecological processes that contribute to the “perfect storm” of conditions that create environmental injustices are well documented in applied ecology scholarship; yet the human dimension or the co-production of research on those impacts seem to fall into the range of “somebody else’s problem.” In a literature review of the last 15 years of research published in the Ecological Society of America’s family of journals, we explored the intersections of environmental processes and social justice issues, searching for themes, gaps, and opportunities. The resultant is a collection of articles on environmental justice topics that includes issues on access to resources and unequal exposure to environmental hazards and pollutants. This collection highlights gaps in the integration of natural science with social justice topics along with the need for stronger integration of interdisciplinary knowledge that is co-produced with community stakeholders and researchers to build a robust interdisciplinary field of climate justice and global environmental sustainability.

This paper examines the parallel discourses of 'lost' local flood expertise and the growing use of commercial consultancies to outsource aspects of flood risk work. We critically examine the various claims and counter-claims about lost, local and external expertise in flood management, focusing on the aftermath of the 2007 floods in East Yorkshire, England. Drawing on interviews with consultants, drainage engineers and others, we caution against claims that privilege 'local' floods knowledge as 'good' and expert knowledge as somehow suspect. This paper urges carefulness in interpreting claims about local knowledge, arguing that it is important always to think instead of hybrid knowledge formations. We conclude by arguing that experiments in the co-production of flood risk knowledge need to be seen as part of a spectrum of ways for producing shared knowledge.

Co‐production of knowledge (CPK) is a process of bringing together diverse perspectives from researchers, agency, and community partners to achieve a shared research goal. The main objective of this article is to provide tools for achieving CPK in research projects, especially with Alaska Native and Arctic Indigenous communities. Team members need to understand their positionality and be aware of assumptions and biases to come to jointly agreed upon project priorities. To assist researchers in reflecting on their positionality, we present research paradigm dispositions from commonly trained methodologies and academic norms. Differences across the dispositions are highlighted in decision‐making, success metrics, evaluation, and validation of outputs. Factors of Success were synthesized from existing literature on CPK, boundary spanning, the science of team science, convergence, Indigenous methodologies, and best practices to understand the CPK process. These Factors of Success are presented in a typical project life cycle logic model, categorized into inputs, process, and outcomes. Given the limited time and resources of research projects and activities, some factors will be given stronger emphasis over others. This article provides tools for transparent communication between researchers and community or agency partners. Plain Language Summary Co‐production of knowledge is a collaborative research approach. This article presents two tools to support and achieve co‐production of knowledge in research projects, with specific application to working with Indigenous communities. The first tool we present is a summary of different perspectives or approaches to research based on the literature. This summary can help research team members become aware of their individual perspectives in order to better work as a team to achieve equitable and mutually agreed upon approach to research goals, priorities, activities, and evaluation. The second tool provides and in‐depth outline of a range of factors that can contribute to the success of a research project. These include the overall context of the project as well as the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and partnership inputs that form the groundwork upon which a research project is based. Project success also depend on multiple procedural aspects of the project, projects outcomes and impacts, and the team and community member's perceptions of success. Our hope is that the tools in this article assist researchers in becoming more self‐reflexive about their own research approach, assumptions, and perceptions of success, which will lead to better communication and equitable partnerships. Key Points Research and cultural backgrounds impact the success of co‐production of knowledge projects Input and partnership development are critical stages in the research process There is a need to balance academic and Indigenous perspectives for credibility, legitimacy, and relevance

Evidence on the efficacy of impacts from real-world experiments in triggering transformative processes is still scarce. This study evaluates multi-actor labs to provide examples of direct impacts of real-world experiments in tackling long-standing, local, sustainability challenges.Multi-actor labs (MALs), a form of real-world social experiments, were implemented in three coastal-rural regions in France (Charente River Basin), Spain (Mar Menor), and Greece (South-West Messinia) to better assess and tackle coastal-rural interactions that govern local sustainability challenges, such as water use conflicts and biodiversity degradation. The MALs used participative methodologies based on systems thinking and transition management. Stakeholders were continuously engaged in a series of workshops to co-produce knowledge, reach a common understanding of the sustainability challenges and issues at stake, and co-design solutions in the form of a roadmap for sustainable transitions in coastal-rural regions. This paper evaluates MALs to provide examples of successful sustainability transition experiments based on the outputs produced, outcomes achieved, and processes used in the three coastal, rural regions.

The Arctic has been home to Indigenous Peoples from time immemorial. Distinct Indigenous worldviews and complex knowledge systems have been passed on from generation to generation, evolving over time in a living process that continues to this day. Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems hold methodologies and assessment processes that provide pathways for knowing and understanding the Arctic, which address all aspects of life, including the spiritual, cultural, and ecological, all in interlinked and supporting ways. For too long, Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic and their knowledges have not been equitably included in many research activities. We argue for systematic change in how research-related activities are conducted in the Arctic. Bringing together multiple knowledge systems, specifically Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems and science, can lead to more equitable, inclusive, and useful outcomes. The co-production of knowledge framework that we forward is designed to assist researchers, decision makers, and communities in moving toward those goals. Given increased interest in the Arctic by the research community, the complex, rapid, and ongoing change in Arctic systems, and amidst renewed and urgent calls for equity globally and across all spheres of life, adoption of a co-production of knowledge framework for the conduct of Arctic research is timely as well as a moral and intellectual imperative. Further, solutions to challenges facing the Arctic and global community are enhanced by the combined understanding of Indigenous Peoples' knowledges and science.

Land use is one of the largest threats to biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. These losses can be mitigated through strategic land use planning efforts that balance the social, economic, and environmental needs of society and the ecosystems that support it. A crucial component in the development of strategic plans is a concrete understanding of land use change and the impacts and influence of it on the landscape. Land change models are one method for quantifying the effect of these relationships and projecting the resulting changes on landscapes of the future. However, in order for the resulting model products to be useful to planners, policy makers, and conservationists, they must be focused on addressing questions of relevance to the community they intend to serve. Scenario planning offers a framework for integrating community‐developed visions of the future with land change models in order to increase relevancy and uptake of products. We developed a land change model for five future scenarios of land use change in northwestern Virginia, integrating regional stakeholder knowledge throughout the process. Across scenarios, we found consistent increases in development across our study area, but the form and configuration of land use types varied sub‐regionally. This manuscript describes not only our results, but the process of integrating stakeholder input throughout. We describe our model outputs in the context of usefulness for planners, policy makers, and conservation decision makers, often through the lens of the importance of geographic scale. This work serves as an additional example of land use modeling across scenarios. We conclude with guidance for scientists interested in integrating similar approaches in their work. This paper presents a land change model for five future scenarios of land‐use change in northwestern Virginia, integrating regional stakeholder knowledge throughout the process from data selection to model development. Across scenarios, we found consistent increases in development for our full study area, but the form and configuration of land use types varied by county and sub‐region.

There is emerging evidence of the important role of indigenous knowledge for climate change adaptation. The necessity to consider different knowledge systems in climate change research has been established in the fifth assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, gaps in author expertise and inconsistent assessment by the IPCC lead to a regionally heterogeneous and thematically generic coverage of the topic. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed academic literature to support better integration of the existing and emerging research on indigenous knowledge in IPCC assessments. The research question underpinning this scoping review is: How is evidence of indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation geographically and thematically distributed in the peer-reviewed academic literature? As the first systematic global evidence map of indigenous knowledge in the climate adaptation literature, the study provides an overview of the evidence of indigenous knowledge for adaptation across regions and categorises relevant concepts related to indigenous knowledge and their contexts in the climate change literature across disciplines. The results show knowledge clusters around tropical rural areas, subtropics, drylands, and adaptation through planning and practice and behavioural measures. Knowledge gaps include research in northern and central Africa, northern Asia, South America, Australia, urban areas, and adaptation through capacity building, as well as institutional and psychological adaptation. This review supports the assessment of indigenous knowledge in the IPCC AR6 and also provides a basis for follow-up research, e.g. bibliometric analysis, primary research of underrepresented regions, and review of grey literature.

This review paper addresses the challenging question of “how to” design and implement co-production of knowledge in climate science and other environmental and agricultural sciences. Based on a grounded theory review of nine (9) published case studies of transdisciplinary and collaborative research projects, the paper offers a set of common themes regarding specific components and processes for the design, implementation, and achievement of co-production of knowledge work, which represent the “Modus Operandi” of knowledge co-production. The analysis focuses on practical methodological guidance based on lessons from how different research teams have approached the challenges of complex collaborative research. We begin by identifying broad factors or actions that inhibit or facilitate the process, then highlight specific practices associated with co-production of knowledge and necessary competencies for undertaking co-production. We provide insights on issues such as the integration of social and professional cultures, gender and social equity, and power dynamics, and illustrate the different ways in which researchers have addressed these issues. By exploring the specific practices involved in knowledge co-production, this paper provides guidance to researchers on how to navigate different possibilities of the process of conducting transdisciplinary and co-production of knowledge research projects that best fit their research context, stakeholder needs, and research team capacities.

Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as practitioners’ knowledge can provide valid and useful knowledge to enhance our understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems for human well-being. There is, therefore, a great need within emerging global assessment programs, such as the IPBES and other international efforts, to develop functioning mechanisms for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across knowledge systems. We present the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities. MEB emphasizes that evaluation of knowledge occurs primarily within rather than across knowledge systems. MEB on a particular issue creates an enriched picture of understanding, for triangulation and joint assessment of knowledge, and a starting point for further knowledge generation.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims to co-produce knowledge to address the complex challenges of unsustainability. Despite progress in articulating principles for successful co-production, Indigenous researchers have pointed out ongoing power imbalances. These disparities, partly stemming from unacknowledged ontological-epistemological inequalities, often perpetuate hidden hierarchies between researchers and participants. At the core of these power imbalances is the dominance in academia of certain ways of knowing (e.g., categorical, experimental, noun-based, substantialist) over others (e.g., relational, experiential, verb-based, idealist). This bias is formalized and reinforced by academic institutions and cultures, passed down and internalized through education and professionalization. Inclusive TDR needs to break this self-reinforcing cycle, but this requires making inner room for multiple perspectives on reality and existence. To explore how inner work may foster ontological pluralism and inclusive TDR, we held a workshop drawing lessons from three case studies of TDR from Malaysia, Botswana, and Ecuador. Participants’ experiences were synthesized into a reflexive cycle of five inner shifts toward inclusive TDR. These shifts enhance the ability of researchers to engage with different ontologies beyond scientific materialism, and recognize their embeddedness in various kinds of relationships, extending their relational awareness to other beings, human and non-human, living and non-living. The proposed reflexive cycle seeks to cultivate capacities for co-production in TDR that are grounded in horizontally inclusive research practices that allow for more contextually relevant and impactful solutions to complex real-world problems.