@article{fdi:010088572,
  title = {{C}o-production opportunities seized and missed in decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture - {H}ow do we practice the "best practice" ?},
  author = {{D}olinska, {A}. and {H}assenforder, {E}. and {L}oboguerrero, {A}. {M}. and {S}ultan, {B}enjamin and {B}ossuet, {J}. and {C}ottenceau, {J}. and {B}onatti, {M}. and {H}ellin, {J}. and {M}ekki, {I}. and {D}rogoul, {A}lexis and {V}adez, {V}incent},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{CONTEXT}: {T}o contribute to building sustainable and effective climate change adaptation solutions avoiding usability gap, it is largely recommended to engage in the process of co-production, integrating expertise and knowledge from various academic and non-academic actors. {OBJECTIVE}: {W}e want to learn if and how co-production, believed to effectively link knowledge and decision -making, and thus suggested as the best practice in building decision-support frameworks, is really applied in the frameworks that are being implemented on the ground. {METHODS}: {A} literature review allowed us to identify integrated decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation in agriculture developed and used over the period of the last 10 years and involving non-academic stakeholders. {T}o analyse them, we chose as an assessment tool the four co-production principles proposed by {N}orstro center dot m and colleagues: context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented and interactive. {RESULTS} {AND} {CONCLUSIONS}: {T}he useful entry points for incorporating co-production in the design of decision -support that we found in the reviewed frameworks include among the others adequate participants selection strategy, building on existing interaction spaces, developing a theory of change with the participants, and involving participants in the design of different elements of the method. {T}he architectures of the analyzed frameworks contained more elements that responded to pluralistic and interactive principles than to context -based and goal oriented principles, we have also identified gaps in the design, such as taking into account the personal characteristics of researchers that could strengthen a framework's implementation and its impact, or attempts at bridging different levels of decision making, to cover the triad of science, policy and practice. {A} detailed look at the decision-frameworks that are actually being applied allows for a critical reflection whether and how we as researchers use what we preach as an effective way of responding to sustainability challenges in agriculture. {C}o-production principles turn out to be a useful tool for analysis and we suggest they can be used as a check-list when designing decision-support frameworks for climate-change adaptation. {SIGNIFICANCE}: {T}his papers offers useful examples of how to shift the research-led processes of decision-support towards more co-production with non-academic actors, to increase chances of bridging the gaps between science, policy and practice.},
  keywords = {{C}o-production ; {C}limate-change adaptation ; {D}ecision-support framework ; {U}sability-gap ; {N}on-academic actors},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{A}gricultural {S}ystems},
  volume = {212},
  numero = {},
  pages = {103775 [18 ]},
  ISSN = {0308-521{X}},
  year = {2023},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103775},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010088572},
}