Coproduction Challenges in the Context of Changing Rural Livelihoods

Abstract

Coproduction is a process that involves scientists and citizens engaging throughout the production of knowledge, decisions, and/or policies. This approach has been widely applied in an international context for addressing global environmental issues. It is customary for scientists to travel to rural communities, where both scientists and local knowledge holders work together and jointly design solutions to pressing problems. Such collaboration, however, often involves high costs for both residents and scientists, which can reduce project effectiveness. This study examines the challenges associated with coproduction in the context of changing rural livelihoods in beneficiary communities. We specifically conduct a self‐analysis of the coproduction process led by our own university team, where scientists designed tools for water and crop management together with community members in Peru's Caylloma province. We collected qualitative data on the coproduction challenges in five local districts in Caylloma, using focus groups and semi‐structured interviews. Our results indicate that changing socioeconomic conditions in rural communities undermined the long‐term sustainability and effectiveness of the coproduction efforts and deliverables. These included increased migration, market integration, and reliance on regional institutions for water and crop management.

Addressing Water Resources and Environmental Quality Programming Needs in Arequipa, Peru

“…A total of eight focus groups were conducted with agency personnel and farmers, including five in the rural districts of Lari, Yanque, Cabanaconde, Chivay, and Majes, and three with different agency audiences in the city of Arequipa. Attendance ranged from one to 40 participants, see Popovici et al (2020b) for details. During the focus groups, SWM members reported the research findings they had obtained through semi‐structured interviews and presented a preliminary set of research ideas to support development of tools for water and crop management.…”

How does co-produced research influence adaptive capacity? Lessons from a cross-case comparison

“…Ideally, co-produced projects are "iterative and inclusive processes that are responsive and adaptive as conditions change and as participants acquire better understandings of both the problems they confront and each other's ways of knowing" (Wyborn et al 2019, p. 325). However, coproduction is expensive in terms of time investment and can even produce negative or unequally distributed outcomes (Popovici et al 2020). Lemos et al (2018) make the important point that because scientists must invest time to build relationships with non-academic partners, they may, because of feasibility, focus all their time with certain groups, "privileging familiarity over the uncertainty of new partners or issues" (p. 723).…”

A process for identifying challenges and opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism development using participatory workshops and big data

“…The public engagement model addresses some of the limitations of the information deficit and contextual models (Figure 1). Introduced by Biggs (1989), the public engagement model is characterized by two-way communication processes focused on developing co-produced knowledge (Corner and Randall, 2011;Meadow et al, 2015;Popovici et al, 2020). The public engagement model emphasizes the need for, and value of, substantively engaging the public in meaningful dialog.…”

“…However, advocates for the public engagement model suggest the co-production of knowledge is facilitated by communication that is structured (e.g., professionally facilitated) and transparent (e.g., notes and/or transcriptions of the engagement are made publicly available) (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018). In addition, the coproduction of knowledge can be fostered when a diversity of interests are involved in the communication (García and Brown, 2009;Meadow et al, 2015;Wall et al, 2017;Popovici et al, 2020). In the context of outdoor recreation and tourism management, this can involve user groups (i.e., outdoor recreationists and tourists), local and regional elected officials, municipal, state, and federal outdoor recreation planners and tourism development specialists, and relevant non-profit groups.…”