Perceptions of co-design, co-development and co-delivery (Co-3D) as part of the co-production process – Insights for climate services

Co-design, co-development, and co-delivery (Co-3D for short) are activities within the co-production research pathway that are increasingly being used in climate change science and adaptation projects. However, the research community is still coming to understand how best to incorporate Co-3D in practice, as each project has a specific context around stakeholder relationships, governance arrangements, and capacity to actively participate. This paper outlines five case studies from Australia as examples of different projects engaging with Co-3D in different ways in order to explore how Co-3D is being used and might be improved. Crucially, we include the perceptions and experiences of researchers, funders and end users, as well as our own critical reflections. Each of the projects self-describes as using ‘co-production’, but the extent and format varies widely with different combinations of co-design, co-development and/or co-delivery used in each. Our findings show that without clear understanding of Co-3D within the co-production process, aspects of Co-3D may not be properly considered in planning or implementation. Co-3D activities are not completely distinct, rather they form a continuum of engagement and integration across phases of project work. Thus, the specific definitions and delineations between these terms may not be required for them to be applied. However, practical and explicit negotiation of what ‘co-production’ means in different project contexts is needed so that all parties understand their roles and responsibilities. Further, more evaluations of outcomes and stakeholder experiences are required. We provide seven principles of Co-3D that should be considered when embarking on co-production projects

From no whinge scenarios to viability tree

Avoiding whinges from various and potentially conflicting stakeholders is a major challenge for sustainable development and for the identification of sustainability scenarios or policies for biodiversity and ecosystem services. It turns out that independently complying with whinge thresholds and constraints of these stakeholders is not sufficient because dynamic ecological-economic interactions and uncertainties occur. Thus more demanding no whinge standards are needed. In this paper, we first argue that these new boundaries can be endogenously exhibited with the mathematical concepts of viability kernel and viable controls. Second, it is shown how these no whinge kernels have components, such as harvesting of resources, that should remain within safe corridor while some other components, in particular biodiversity, have only lower conservation limits. Thus, using radar charts, we show how this no whinge kernels can take the shape of a tree that we name viability tree. These trees of viability capture the idea that the unbounded renewal potential of biodiversity combined with a bounded use of the different ecosystem services are crucial ingredients for the sustainability of socio-ecosystems and the design of no whinge policies reconciling the different stakeholders involved