Knowledge coproduction at the periphery of the urban and academia: Insights from Acapulco’s metropolitan area

Abstract

In this paper I focus on the Coyuca Resilient to Climate project which was based on a coproduction process initiated by academics in Acapulco’s Metropolitan Area. Using Actor-Network Theory (ANT), I trace project’s implementation, considering the implications and complications of the process for the research team, and the role of coproduction for planning just cities. I argue that it is vital to consider the specific situation with regards to the urban and knowledge production systems from which researchers operate, connecting coproduction to broader political and academic contexts. I also argue that it is crucial to consider the multi-layered structure of power, specifically regarding academics situated at the periphery of the urban and academia, as it is from this double structure (‘potestas’ and ‘potentia’), that they engage in coproduction and planning just cities. Lastly, I argue that knowledge coproduction relates to long-term processes that require nurturing capacities and alliances for building not only just cities and but also a more just knowledge system.

Keywords

coproduction knowledge coproduction academia urban periphery Global South sciences power dynamics outcomes

Introduction

Socio-economic inequality, environmental sustainability, and climate change are among the most pressing challenges for cities across the globe. To address them, coproduction approaches aiming to engage diverse actors, including state actors, civil society, and academics, have gained traction and become increasingly relevant over the past decade in planning and urban-related debates across the Global South and Global North (Mitlin and Bartlett, 2018; Watson, 2014). The associated literature has explored various topics including knowledge coproduction, which primarily relates to processes initiated by academics or in which academics have a central role. Most of the research on knowledge coproduction focuses on principles for implementing such processes (Culwick et al., 2019; Norström et al., 2020; Odume et al., 2021; Polk, 2015; Zurba et al., 2022). However, recent studies have broadened the discussion to power dynamics between academic and non-academic actors (Mitlin et al., 2020; Turnhout et al., 2020) and outcomes (Miszczak and Patel, 2018; Patel et al., 2020), including coproduction role for urban equality (Castán Broto et al., 2022) and just cities (Perry and Atherton, 2017).

Nevertheless, although the literature acknowledges the value of developing context-based and locally embedded processes, it overlooks the diversity of capacities, resources, and networks among scientific communities and institutions, ultimately neglecting the specific situations from which academics initiate coproduction strategies. This gap is particularly significant at the ‘periphery of the urban and academia’, which in this paper I define as a situation rather than a mere location in three overlapping ways: in relation to a city centre (or well-equipped neighbourhoods), marked by a lack of data and information; in relation to the global urban systems, chiefly composed of small and medium-sized cities in the Global South, which have limited resources and capacities and are overlooked by the literature (Kanai et al., 2018; Nugraha et al., 2023); and in relation to the knowledge production system, that creates academic geographies of invisibility and exclusion (Walker and Boamah, 2019).

To address this gap, I analyse the Coyuca Resilient to Climate (CRC) project based on an academic-initiated coproduction process in Coyuca, a city in the state of Guerrero, Mexico. The project sought to promote climate resilience through the development of a gender-sensitive and participatory climate adaptation plan for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. This system is located on the outskirts of the Acapulco Metropolitan Area (AMA), a secondary metropolis (vis-à-vis Mexico City and other large cities in the country) that is highly vulnerable to hydrogeological hazards and marked by socio-economic, environmental, and educational inequality. Financed by the Climate Resilient Cities in Latin America (CRCLatam) Initiative, the project was implemented by a research team, which included six academics working at the Autonomous University of Guerrero (UAG) and the Technological Institute of Acapulco (ITA), two major academic institutions in the AMA. CRC’s coproduction strategy was articulated around two main devices: a multi-stakeholder platform at the metropolitan level and participatory fieldwork in two communities (Barra and Bejuco). The geography of the project and composition of the research team provides rich ground for examining the context of academic-initiated coproduction at the periphery of the urban and academia.

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005) was used to analyse the case, understanding knowledge coproduction as a ‘translation mechanism’ (Callon, 1986); that is, a process through which diverse human and non-human actors (products and producers) are (dis)assembled. Accordingly, I unfolded knowledge coproduction (dis)associations, revealing the implications and complications of the process for the research team and the role of coproduction for planning just cities. The tracing of the CRC coproduction process was supported by written sources, including project reports, a photographic archive, personal correspondence, and a diary. I argue that it is vital to consider the specific circumstances—associated with urban and academic systems—from which academics engage in coproduction. This implies connecting coproduction to broader political and knowledge production contexts. I also argue that it is crucial to consider the multi-layered structure of power, specifically regarding academics situated at the periphery of the urban and academia, as it is from this double structure (to be allowed or not, and to have the capacity or ability to), that such academics engage in knowledge coproduction and planning just cities. Laslty, I argue that knowledge coproduction relates to long-term processes that require nurturing capacities and alliances for making transformational changes, and ultimately, building not only just cities and but also a more just knowledge system.

This paper is organized into five sections. The first reviews the literature on knowledge coproduction, highlighting the lack of attention given to the situations from which academics initiate coproduction processes. The second section presents the menthods and the third section contextualizes the case study. The fourth section describes the implications and complications of the CRC coproduction process, while the fifth section discusses these findings. The final section presents the concluding remarks.

Knowledge coproduction: Roots, development, and gap

Coproduction: Actors, products, modes of existence

The literature on coproduction is anchored in three main theoretical approaches. The first approach, particularly promoted by Elinor Ostrom (1996), originates in the field of Public Administration in the US and UK (Mitlin, 2008; Watson, 2014). Ostrom used coproduction to illustrate the complementarity of inputs from officials and citizens in the production of goods and services that render public policy possible. This conceptualisation was integrated into the ideas of development in the Global South in the 1990s, seeking to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of state plans and public services (Mitlin and Bartlett, 2018). Subsequently, during the first decade of the 2000s, attention was paid to the political ramifications of coproduction processes initiated by social movements in cities of the Global South, revealing that such processes not only improved public services but also strengthened citizen organisation while serving as a platform for civic and political engagement (Mitlin, 2008). This approach was also integrated into the discussion of planning theory. Particularly, Watson (2014) argues that social movement-initiated coproduction differs from collaborative and communicative planning approaches as it engages users in both planning and delivery processes, acknowledges that government technologies are at the heart of power, and seeks to up-scale local practices through ‘translocal assemblages’ (Mcfarlane, 2011). According to the author, social movement-initiated coproduction expands the conceptualisation and forms of state-society engagement and the institutional possibilities for ‘empowered participatory governance’. Watson (2014) also observes that coproduction strategies are not about influencing policy but rather making fundamental changes in modes of governance.

The second approach to coproduction originates in Science and Technology Studies (STS). Jasonoff (2004: 17) argues that, in this case, coproduction is mobilised to avoid social and technoscientific determinism, emphasising that ‘the realities of human experience emerge as the joint achievement of scientific, technical and social expertise: science and society, in a word, are co-produced each underwriting the other’s existence’. This approach follows two streams: ‘interactional’ studies that focuses on epistemology, and ‘constitutive’ studies that addresses how the stability of social and scientific orders emerges and is maintained. Regarding the latter, Jasonoff (2004: 22) observed the importance of Latour (1993) as for her, Latour is authentically about coproduction because he ‘does not presuppose any a priori demarcation of the world before the world is worked upon by human imagination and labour’. More recently, Latour, (2013) argued that sciences together with other courses of action, including politics and arts, correspond to different modes of existence which intertwine, producing reality. Under this perspective, ‘the application of sciences into the real world’, becomes a question of ‘implication’ of science with other courses of action (Latour, 2012: 126).

A third approach of coproduction originates from Sustainability Science. Wyborn et al. (2019) noted that, in this case, coproduction has been used as a framework to reconsider science and its relationship with society to address sustainability challenges. Under this perspective, knowledge is ‘meaningless if not used to alter social behaviours and societal arrangements’ (Miller and Wyborn, 2020: 90). Thus, the ‘usability of sciences’ by non-academic actors has been a major concern, and the literature has primarily focused on knowledge-making and on designing and implementing coproduction strategies between researchers and non-academic actors (Wyborn et al., 2019). This approach has intertwined with Public Administration and STS approaches mentioned above, calling into question the organisational and socio-political contexts of coproduction processes . In this context, Miller and Wyborn (2020) stress that coproduction involves multiple products, as it articulates both science and political projects and multiple producers, including institutional arrangements. Therefore, coproduction concerns the creation of new governance patterns through which knowledge and social dynamics can be generated for sustainability. In this sense, coproduction expands knowledge-making beyond scientists, aiming to transform how science is done (Miller and Wyborn, 2020).

Building on these approaches I reclaim coproduction as a process through which different producers and products are assembled, which sustain different modes of existence—including sciences—that together co-create the urban experience. This conceptualization aims to stress that coproduction not only relates to the forms in which state and society engage but also to the entanglement of science and society.

Knowledge coproduction: Literature and gaps

Studies on coproduction, anchored in the three aforementioned approaches, have focused on diverse topics. One of them is knowledge coproduction, which has gained prominence in planning and urban-related literature. Its particularity is that it relates to academic-initiated coproduction or processes with knowledge at their core. Most of the literature on this topic concentrates on principles and lessons learnt for knowledge coproduction and converges on five key elements. First, the importance of developing context-based, locally embedded, and flexible processes (Culwick et al., 2019; Norström et al., 2020; Osuteye et al., 2019; Simon et al., 2018), acknowledging that there is no single model or right approach (Miszczak and Patel, 2018). Second, the need for transdisciplinarity (Odume et al., 2021; Osuteye et al., 2019), promoting the participation of academic and non-academic actors and the integration of different knowledge systems (Korhonen-Kurki et al., 2022; Norström et al., 2020; Zurba et al., 2022). Consequently, the literature highlights the importance of creating safe spaces, building trust (Culwick et al., 2019) and empowering knowledge holders (Zurba et al., 2022). Third, the significance of developing long-term collaborations (Miszczak and Patel, 2018) and partnerships of equivalences, considering the power differentials at different scales (Osuteye et al., 2019). Fourth, the need to produce usable outputs and actionable knowledge that contribute to societal change (Korhonen-Kurki et al., 2022; Osuteye et al., 2019; Wyborn et al., 2019; Zurba et al., 2022).

In addition, recent studies have centred around power dynamics and coproduction outcomes. Regarding the former, Turnhout et al. (2020) contend that power dynamics and politics have been overlooked in Sustainability Science, leading to the depoliticization of knowledge coproduction. These authors indicate that such depoliticization can be recognised by the presence of science-driven logics that reproduce power asymmetries between science and other ways of knowing, the search for consensus that masks differences or benefits certain stakeholders, and the separation of knowledge coproduction from the broader political context. Along the same line, Mitlin et al. (2020) argue that in development research, academics overlook power dynamics while engaging in coproduction processes with social movements. They underline four issues that are also areas of opportunity for addressing power asymmetry. The first issue is the existence of different theories of change: for social movements, change is effected through collective organisation, whereas for researchers change is brought about by evidence-based problem identification. Building on Latour (2013), I understand that this difference relates to the distinctiveness of each mode of existence that co-creates the reality of human experience. The second issue concerns training next-generation urban professionals who will be responsible for planning practices, regulations, and standards, and thus influence conditions of inequality and exclusion. Mitlin et al. (2020) sustain, on the one hand, that training is constrained by the lack of formal recognition of student activities with communities and, on the other, that students may improperly influence or control local processes, as they are required to comply with academic guidelines. The third issue relates to social status. The authors underscore that social movements seek to collaborate with academics, as it enhances their legitimacy; however, the collaboration might also undermine social movement efforts, because academics could be seen as those who will provide the solutions, thus discouraging learning processes. Lastly, the fourth issue refers to the lack of institutionalisation and accountability in collaborative work between academia and social movements, and the focus on short-term collaboration rather than long-term partnerships.

Regarding coproduction outcomes, Castán Broto et al. (2022) explain that even if the social relevance of a coproduction process is visible, the outcomes of such process are often difficult to identify. For their part, Miszczak and Patel (2018), building on a case study in Cape Town, stress that policy change cannot be directly attributed to knowledge coproduction, despite the various benefits that have resulted from it. Expanding the analysis to other Sub-Saharan African cities, Patel et al. (2020) observed that there is no evidence of radical change generated by the coproduction of knowledge. This resonates with Perry and Atherton (2017), who argue that the importance of coproduction for transitioning towards just cities does not reside in radical changes but rather in modest and intangible progress towards the building of conditions from which just cities might emerge, such as a shared understanding and more diverse stakeholder networks. For Perry and Atherton (2017), coproduction has the potential to move from affirmative strategies (working within the system) to transformative strategies (change of structural frameworks) for urban justice.

Overall, the current literature reflects not only on the principles but also on the power dynamics and outcomes, expanding our understanding of the reverberations of knowledge coproduction processes. Nevertheless, the literature uses ‘academics’ or ‘academia’ as a homogenous category, masking the diversity of capacities, resources, and networks among researchers, students, and scientific institutions, and, ultimately, the specific situations from which academics initiate coproduction strategies. This gap seems particularly significant at what I call—inspired by X. Ren's (2021) categorisation of the concept of periphery—the ‘periphery of the urban and academia’, which I conceptualise as a situation rather than a location in three overlapping ways.

First, periphery in relation to well-equipped and connected neighbourhoods, often marked not only by exclusion, poor-quality urban life, and environmental degradation but also by inventive capacity, adaptative strategies and collaborative processes. Usually, little is known about these neighbours in constant change. Second, periphery in relation to global urban systems, chiefly composed of small and medium-sized cities in the Global South. These cities are expected to be at the centre of future urban expansion, yet they have limited resources and capacities, particularly for addressing climate change (IPCC, 2014). Furthermore, they tend to be poorly studied or overlooked (Nugraha et al., 2023), as planning and urban theory generally focus on the world’s largest cities, and often lack continued scholarly interest (Kanai et al., 2018). Lastly, periphery in relation to the knowledge production system. Kong and Qian (2019) argue that urban studies on knowledge production and circulation are predominantly carried out in Anglophone countries, by a small group of Anglophone institutions, and by high-impact Anglo-American authors. For their part, Walker and Boamah (2019) emphasise that critical urban theory is dominated by a handful of ‘invisible colleges’, understood as clusters of scholars, their co-authors, and academic mentors and mentees, creating and reinforcing privileges and advantages, as well as geographies of invisibility and exclusion. With regards to planning, the abovementioned findings resonate with Lee's (2022) argument about a status-based inequality in planning academy produced by elite programmes, and Watson's (2014) observation that global relations of power shape ‘the wider acceptability of ideas that emerge’ from cities in the Global South. These peripheral situations often intersect: key invisible colleges are generally located in major cities of the urban global systems, which are at the centre of knowledge production, whereas small and medium-sized cities, particularly in the South, are understudied and tend to have scientific communities with limited capacities and influence in global academic debates.

To address this gap, in this paper I explore the CRC project, an academic-initiated coproduction process in the AMA. Specifically, I focus on the implications and complications that emerged in this case.

Methods

To analyse the CRC project, I adopted an ANT perspective. According to the ANT, social phenomena are conceptualised as the result of the association of human and non-human entities, called ‘actor networks’ or ‘actants’, and generated through the process of ‘translation’(Latour, 2005). Specifically, Callon (1986) differentiated four moments in a translation process: (i) problematisation, which involves establishing a first system of alliance (association) among actors; (ii) interessement, which includes all the devices and strategies that aim to stabilize the system of alliances and the identity of actors defined during the problematisation; (iii) enrolment, understood as a successful moment of interessement; (iv) and mobilisation, during which the enrolled entities act as a single actor network. In addition, Callon stresses the possibility of ‘dissidence’, understood as a controversy during which previous moments are called into question, putting at risk the stability of the actant. Translation was relevant for analysing the CRC project implementation and the process of knowledge coproduction because, as shown by Callon (1986), it allows describing (un)successful process of entanglement between researchers and other actors, and more broadly between sciences and other courses of action.

Accordingly, for the analysis of the CRC project, I understood knowledge coproduction as a ‘translation mechanism’ (Callon, 1986); that is, a process through which diverse human and non-human entities (producers and products) were (dis)assembled. Thus, I focused on the unfolding of the knowledge coproduction (dis)associations, revealing the implications and complications pertinent to the research team. For this, I followed the ‘detective work’ method, conceptualised as ‘tracing and unfolding complex arrangements to reveal the implicate, unforeseen elements and practices that constitute them’ (Austrin and Farnsworth, 2005, p. 148). Specifically, I traced the four moments of translation, primarily using written resources, including the CRCLatam Terms of Reference, the CRC project research proposal, and 11 internal reports to donors, which included a research uptake plan and quarterly progress reports. Other documents and written sources were also used, such as the photographic archive and CRC blog. In addition, as Co-Principal Investigator, my familiarity with the implementation of the project, correspondence and diary were also used to trace the translation of the CRC project. The analysis of these sources enabled me to establish a detailed sequence of events of the project’s design and implementation, revealing the implications of the knowledge coproduction process, pertinent to the researchers, as well as its complications.

Coyuca resilient to climate: An overview

The CRC project was financed by the CRCLatam Initiative, which was led by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) focused on supporting ‘decision-makers in designing and delivering climate compatible development’; the Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (FFL), CDKN’s programme leader in Latin America and the Caribbean; and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), whose climate change programme sought to build ‘resilience in cities through improving the evidence base to inform planning and action’(CRCLatam, 2016). The CRCLatam Initiative aimed to identify and promote innovative solutions for climate compatible development (CDKN, n.d.), conceptualised as a ‘development that minimises the harm caused by climate impacts, while maximising the many human development opportunities presented by a low emission, more resilient, future’ (CRCLatam, 2016). Thus, climate resilient development involved not only responding to climate stresses and shocks, but also seeking opportunities to transform urban development processes. The initiatives focused on small and medium-sized cities, considering that despite their growth, they were poorly analysed in the literature of climate change, disaster risk reduction and resilience and have limited capacities and funding to implement climate resilient actions. Moreover, the initiative recognized the divide between expert and lay knowledge and the need to foster participation and coproduction in research processes. Thus, it encouraged building collaboration and engagement with multiple stakeholders, considering gender inequality.

Within this framework, the CRC project concentrated on generate a better gender-responsive understanding of climate risks and urban governance and coproduce a gender-sensitive and participatory climate adaptation plan for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system, which is composed of Coyuca City and 14 settlements around the coastal lagoon, has a population of nearly 30,000 inhabitants, and is located in the AMA. Formed by the municipalities of Acapulco de Juarez and Coyuca de Benitez, the AMA is in the Southern Pacific coastline of Guerrero, one of the most vulnerable states in Mexico to climate change (INECC, 2016) and among the highest ranking states in terms of poverty and extreme poverty (CONEVAL, n.d.). Guerrero is also lagging behind the national average in education and literacy (CONEVAL, n.d.). and has limited research and innovation capacities in relation to other states (CONACYT, 2020). This occurs in a national context of limited capacities: Only 0.2% of 25-64 year-olds in Mexico hold a master’s degree and 0.1% hold a doctorate, whereas the average across OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries is 18% and 1.1% respectively (OECD, 2019). The AMA has a population of about 852,000 inhabitants primarily concentrated in Acapulco. Since the 20^th century, tourism has largely stimulated the city’s development, leading to major socio-spatial inequalities. In the centre of Acapulco and along the coastline, there are high-end condominiums, subdivisions, and tourist infrastructure with access to public services and equipment, and employment opportunities. Precarious and informal neighbourhoods are located at the periphery of these areas, without access to public services or sources of employment, with poor-quality housing and transport, and high exposure to the crime industry and natural hazards. For instance, most social housing constructed in the 2000s is in flood-prone areas. For its part, Coyuca’s urban development is largely concentrated around the municipality’s coastal lagoon and along the coastline and Coyuca River. Coyuca is characterized by high marginalisation (CONAPO, 2016) and poverty levels (CONEVAL, n.d.). In addition, Coyuca is considered a very high-risk municipality in relation to severe climates (Arreguín et al., 2015)

The CRC project was implemented by a research team made up of five local researchers (three women and two men) between the ages of 50 and 60, from two major academic institutions in Guerrero: the Autonomous University of Guerrero (UAG) and the Technological Institute of Acapulco (ITA). UAG is the principal public university of Guerrero. It was founded in 1960 and offers intermediate and higher education. For its part, ITA is the second largest higher education institution in Guerrero with over 4,000 students enrolled. Four of the local researchers studied their doctorate degree at UAG and were well connected with state and non-state actors in AMA and Guerrero due to their long trajectory as academics. For my part, I was in my late thirties, and I was commissioned by the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) at UAG to conduct research on urban development and disaster risk management in the context of a long-term research programme (2015-2025). I had completed my PhD at University College London (UCL) and mainly had academic and professional connections abroad. The CRCLatam Initiative appeared as an ideal opportunity to get funding for research and engage in a dialogue with people working across Latin America. The team also included a consultant in development planning based in Mexico City, in my age group and also educated at UCL, an international expert from Canada in the same age group as that of the local researchers, and two international researchers formed in the USA and UK. Integrating these external members (all women) was facilitated by the bond I created with them during my PhD studies or from UCL contacts.

The CRC project was implemented from February 2017 to February 2019 and had five phases. First, the inception phase, during which a detailed implementation plan and a research uptake plan were prepared. During this phase, the research team also formed the multi-stakeholder platform (detailed below) and selected the two communities for conducting fieldwork. Phase two consisted in a risk analysis of Coyuca’s urban lagoon through participatory field work and desk research. Phase three focused on a detailed analysis of modes of governance of planning and disaster risk management, including climate action. Phase four concentrated on the elaboration of the adaptation strategy for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. Phase five was the project conclusion, which mainly involved public presentations and reflexions on next steps.

From problematisation to mobilisation: Implications and complications

Problematisation: First system of alliance

The problematisation that supported the CRC project was established through the elaboration the research proposal and consolidated during the inception phase. It was based on the vulnerability of Coyuca’s coastal urban lagoon system to hydrometeorological risks (and potentially climate risks), and the poor understanding of risks from a gender perspective and modes of governance regarding disaster risk management. Consequently, the proposal focused on the production of a more comprehensive and gender sensitive understanding of risks and urban governance patterns to support the elaboration of a climate adaptation strategy. The proposal also considered that the mobilisation of actors beyond academia and the government was vital to knowledge production and climate adaptation. Accordingly, the research proposal defined knowledge coproduction as the chief methodological approach for mobilising academics, state actors and civil society to address knowledge gaps and foster action.

Callon (1986) argues that problematisation entails not only defining the problem but also identifying the relevant actors . For the CRC project, during the inception phase we identified three main groups of actors. First, public sector actors from the municipal, state and federal government, as they were responsible for public action regarding disaster risk management. Second, civil society from Coyuca’s urban lagoon system and, more broadly, the AMA that could be interested in participating, as they had suffered material and human losses from disasters. Third, research community at local and international levels that could be interested in studying Acapulco or generating knowledge about an understudied city of the Global South. In this process, the interest of the research team concentrated in expanding urban and planning knowledge about the AMA and contributing to the building of inclusive climate adaptation strategies in Coyuca. Accordingly, the first system of alliance that resulted from the problematisation was established as follows: In order improve risk management, be better prepared for disasters, and advance knowledge, then the government, civil society and researchers, respectively, needed to agree upon coproducing knowledge about risks and modes of governance from a gender-based perspective and developing climate adaptation strategies.

Interessement: Devices and tricks

Interessement involves all sorts of tricks to stabilise the assemblage determined during the problematisation and the identity of actors involved (Callon, 1986). The CRC project included two main interessement devices based on knowledge coproduction: a multi-stakeholder platform and participatory fieldwork. The former sought to generate a space and a public with which to produce knowledge about the urban lagoon system and alternatives for climate resilience while furthering the development of participatory and inclusive governance. It also aimed to engage academics in the affairs of Coyuca and the AMA and promote new scientific practices. The research team carried out a detailed mapping of actors to facilitate the selection of participants for the multi-stakeholder platform. The selection considered a balance in gender, age, and sector, as well as the capacity to organise and make decisions at different levels (community, municipal, metropolitan). The multi-stakeholder platform met five times: three at a hotel in Acapulco and two at the Coyuca municipal building. The sessions in Acapulco were organised as one- or two-day participatory workshops with a capacity-building session, and the sessions in Coyuca consisted in short participatory meetings.

Participatory fieldwork encompassed transect, semi-structured interviews and participatory workshops in collaboration with local communities in Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. The purpose was to generate empirical knowledge that would enrich the multi-stakeholder platform while engaging researchers at community level in the AMA. Coyuca’s Director of Civil Protection was our main ally in the municipal government and proposed the communities of Barra and Bejuco for the project. These communities were chosen because they had been severely affected by hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel in 2013 and were also safe places for conducting research. Security was crucial, as organised crime has grown in Guerrero, particularly in Acapulco, over the past two decades.

Key to the interessement of diverse actors was the professional and personal contacts of the local researchers, and the institutional weight and legitimacy of UAG and ITA, two of Guerrero’s most respectable academic institutions. For instance, the comisarios (local authorities) of Barra and Bejuco agreed to participate in the project not only because of the hydrometeorological hazards their community faced but also because they trusted the UAG. In addition, the interessement of AMA stakeholders was also facilitated by the fact that CRC included the participation of national and international experts and was part of a regional initiative led by international organisations. Local actors deemed the project as valuable and relevant because of its association with national and international actors. Lastly, the funding received from CRCLatam allowed us to interest and enrol diverse actors, particularly civil society organisations, as we provided travel and food allowances throughout the project.

However, several complications constrained the enrolment and mobilisation of actors, thus limiting the coproduction of knowledge.

Enrolment: Urban and academic-related complications

Limited data, information and knowledge

The interessement devices (participatory fieldwork and multi-stakeholder platform) enables us to coproduce knowledge about disaster risks and modes of governance in Coyuca and the AMA. However, this was limited by the lack of current data and information about Bejuco and Barra, and more generally, about Coyuca’s urban lagoon system and the AMA. As in many peripheral neighbourhoods in Mexico and elsewhere, the available data and information did not account for recent changes in public services such as health, education, water, urban expansion, and street names. Moreover, Coyuca’s urban development was poorly documented and the history and evolution of Bejuco and Barra was insufficiently recorded. The lack of information was a concern for the communities. Residents in Bejuco requested a census, as they did not have updated information about the community. For their part, residents in Barra requested a census of the restaurants and tourism offerings. Addressing all the information gaps was beyond the scope of this project; however, the donors gave us the flexibility to reallocate resources to conduct a more detailed mapping of Bejuco with drones. In addition, ITA researchers and their graduate students carried out a census in Bejuco outside the project budget.

There was also a knowledge gap in relation to planning, urban development, and climate change in Coyuca, Acapulco, and the AMA in general. There are some studies on planning and urban development (Palacios, 2013; Ruz-Vargas, 2014), environmental degradation (Lopez et al., 2012) and disaster risks (Palacios Ortega et al., 2015; Rodríguez-Herrera et al., 2012), but they are primarily focused on Acapulco rather than Coyuca and represent isolated efforts made over time, limiting their capacity to constitute a coherent corpus of literature. In addition, most of the literature are books or book chapters published by UAG and ITA, theses, conference papers, and reports, with little circulation in Spanish networks of knowledge distribution beyond Guerrero and disconnected from English ones. This limited the articulation of a discussion with the broader academic community in Guerrero and abroad. It is worth noting that UAG developed an institutional repository in 2017 with the support of CONACYT as part of a national strategy to enhance the accessibility to academic production; however, its relevance is still unclear.

Constrained research and institutional capacity

Another difficulty was the limited research capacities. Local researchers were more familiar with disciplinary approaches; that is, they had expertise in the topics of the project (planning, risks, climate change, and gender) but had little experience working at their intersection. They also lacked work experience in participatory fieldwork or transdisciplinary research in collaboration with state actors and civil society. To overcome this difficulty, two more researchers were integrated into the project. They were both based in another state. Furthermore, several practitioners were hired on an ad hoc basis to consolidate the research and build research capacities. One NGO trained local researchers, Coyuca residents, and UAG students that were added to the team as interns in collaborative mapping and risk analysis, using digital tools for strengthening fieldwork in Bejuco and Barra. Another NGO, focusing on gender and environment, was brought on board to consolidate the community work from a gender perspective. Lastly, a consultancy firm was employed to elaborate a detailed diagnosis of climate change models in Coyuca and Acapulco, while a journalist specialised in climate change was hired to support the communication strategy. In all cases, the persons and organisation that joined the project were based in Mexico City, as it is the centre of specialised knowledge and expertise in Mexico.

The integration of these ‘external’ researchers and practitioners happened without major resistance. None of them were from Guerrero, and most were not in academia, which enabled us to unsettle prevailing hierarchical relationships (supported by academic titles and positions) within academia, among professors, young scholars, students; and between academics and non-academic actors. In addition, the external actors were younger than local researchers and have different areas of expertise and professional trajectories. This enabled local researchers to switch their role from experts to apprentices. By ceding power, local researchers not only contributed to enhance the quality of the research but also to enrol other researchers, postgraduate students and non-academic actors. In other words, without the cooperation of local researchers, the coproduction of knowledge could have reinforced asymmetrical relationships within and outside academia, and ultimately, failed in implicating researchers and their scientific practices into Coyuca’s urban lagoon and the AMA.

The limited institutional capacities were also a major problem. ITA is dedicated to technological education and recognises but does not incentivise research. It has limited financial, human, and infrastructure capacities for conducting research. In this adverse context, ITA researchers worked during off-hours, thus limiting their involvement in the project. With regards to UAG, it also had low research capacities in terms of human and financial resources despite recent efforts to build them. Over the past two decades, the UAG has sought to develop its research capacities. The number of postgraduate programmes accredited by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) rose from two in 2009 to 38 in 2020 (i.e., 27 master’s programmes, 6 doctorate programmes and 5 specializations). Nevertheless, UAG conducted little research on planning and urban-related affairs, and none of its postgraduate programmes are in these areas. It is important to highlight, though, that only a few academic institutions offer planning degrees in Mexico (Galland, 2018). Moreover, UAG had little experience in applying to and managing international grants, as the bulk of funding is provided by CONACYT. At the beginning of the bidding process, UAG was the leading institution of the consortium; however, due to administrative issues, the project was submitted by a consultancy firm that was part of the consortium together with UAG and ITA. Later in the process, part of the grant was transferred to UAG. However, this interfered with the use of resources, as the UAG expense policy included complicated procedures and rules, and CRC implementation required flexibility.

In addition, seeking to connect with debates and actors beyond the AMA, CRC included the elaboration of academic and non-academic publications, participation in academic and practice-oriented events, and integration of international researchers. However, alliance building with academic and non-academic actors that were not from Guerrero presented some difficulties. The project had a budget for national and international conferences that was not entirely used. Local researchers had few connections beyond the local scientific community, as most of them studied in Acapulco and had mainly worked in academic institutions in Guerrero. This is not exception, the higher education system in Mexico is weakly internationalised (OECD, 2019). Furthermore, the two international researchers could not be fully integrated into the team. Beyond language barriers, the entanglement of local scholars with international researchers required establishing common ground from which partnership could emerge, and this was outside the scope of the project. Moreover, the research team sought to build bridges with potentially relevant actors at the national level, including the Mario Molina Institute, well known for its research on climate change. Nevertheless, this was unsuccessful because most of them are based in Mexico City, rendering it difficult to engage with them on a regular basis.

Deeply rooted hierarchical and exclusionary modes of governance

Knowledge coproduction through participatory fieldwork and the multi-stakeholder platform provided spaces for dialogue among state actors, social organisations, and researchers. The status and expertise of local researchers (academic credentials and legitimacy of UAG and ITA), external researchers and practitioners, and the reputation of CRCLatam funders enabled us to unsettle traditional ways of interaction between state and society characterized by rigid and hierarchical relationships. A visible change was positioning attendees' chairs in a half-circle shape to avoid the use of a high table, incentivising the inclusion of all participants and reduction of power asymmetry in the spatial setting. However, the hierarchical relationships among actors remained deeply rooted. For instance, by the end of the project, we held a meeting for members of the multi-stakeholder platform in Coyuca to start shifting the leadership. Hosted by the municipality, the event followed a formal and hierarchical protocol. Before the meeting, an inaugural act took place with a high table presided by the municipal president, municipal secretaries, and several researchers, while the room was full of municipal staff. Most actors of the platform were absent and community participation was minimal. Some members of the municipal staff participated intermittently, as they were called to attend day-to-day issues next door.

In addition, fostering a partnership between the researchers and local authorities was complicated because the latter assumed that the researchers had superior knowledge and, therefore, that their role was to provide the solutions. After the CRC project implementation, a collaboration between researchers and the Coyuca-Mitla Basin Committee was established to update the Committee’s strategic action plan. Overall, the idea was to form a joint leadership with the local government and civil society to update the plan; however, the process was ultimately controlled by UAG and the Coyuca government (Becerril et al., 2020). This is consistent with the work of Mitlin et al. (2020), who explained that knowledge coproduction might undermine the efforts made by local actors and discourage learning processes.

Hierarchical modes of governance were coupled with gender inequality. Fieldwork in the communities of Barra and Bejuco revealed a marked sexual division of labour that held women back from participating in the coproduction process. During the scoping visits, the women offered and served us water while the men sat down to talk with us. In the context of fieldwork activities, such as participatory risk appraisal, the women outnumbered the men; however, men tended to monopolise the conversation as many had occupied positions of power within the municipal administration. Furthermore, fisherwomen in Barra were invited to participate (using financial resources of CRC) in an event organised by an association of fisherwomen in Oaxaca, but they informed us that they could not attend because their husbands had not given them permission. The sexual division of labour was also visible in the multi-stakeholder platform. Women’s participation was minimal due to their absence in planning and urban-related affairs and civil protection matters. The municipal secretariats of public works and urban services are mostly integrated and managed by men trained as architects and engineers. Sexual division of labour was also evident within the research team. During the implementation of the project, we identified that certain roles and workloads were systematically attributed only to women, such as receiving guests, while men were systematically in charge of technical tasks, for example.

Limited planning debates and practice

Another limitation was the limited experience regarding urban discussion and participatory planning exercises at local and state levels. We found several urban development plans in Acapulco, which had been elaborated and approved since the 1960s with little participation of civil society (Ruz-Vargas, 2014). In Coyuca we found hardly any plans. Overall, in both cases, planning exercises have been primarily led by external private consultancy firms (i.e., not from AMA or Guerrero) working closely with state and federal governments rather than with the municipal authorities and local stakeholders. In this sense, planning practices in the AMA follow the prevailing paradigm in Mexico which is characterised by positivist and legal approaches that primarily involve the elaboration of regulatory plans and implementation of zoning instruments to control urban development (Chaparro, 2009; Galland, 2018).

Mobilisation: Unexpected outcomes

In the context of the above-mentioned limitations and complications, the objective of coproducing a strategic adaptation for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system was not possible to achieve. In other words, the process of interessement did not result in the expected enrolment and mobilisation delineated in the problematisation. This was exacerbated by the fact that as an academic-initiated process, the project did not have a mandate or funding for implementing actions. Therefore, the research team agreed with the funding agencies that, instead of providing a detailed plan, the strategy would delineate general lines of action discussed and validated with the multistakeholder platform. In addition, it was agreed upon to elaborate flood emergency plans for Barra and Bejuco based on the participatory diagnosis.

Nevertheless, the CRC project contributed to other outputs and outcomes. Above all, it served as the basis for further collaborations as it provided opportunities to meet and connect diverse stakeholders. With regards to Coyuca’s urban lagoon system, UAG researchers were invited by the municipality to participate in an ecological planning process, join the Coyuca-Mitla Basin Committee, and update the Committee’s strategic action plan as mentioned above. This collaboration was connected to CRC as water management was identified as a key element for building climate resilience. The partnership with Coyuca’s government was formalised through a collaboration agreement. These activities have been conducted despite three municipal elections because of the UAG’s status as the principal academic institution in Guerrero. Sustained relationships were also established between UAG researchers and Coyuca stakeholders through community-based projects with students pursuing a Master’s degree. In addition, CRC also contributed to developing several connections beyond Guerrero: UAG students participated in academic events in other cities in Mexico and a group of students and Civil Protection staff joined a workshop organised by fisherwomen in Oaxaca. Moreover, instead of traveling abroad, at the end of the project, and mainly with the funding left for international trips, a transdisciplinary dialogue with academics and professionals from other cities in Mexico and abroad was organised in Acapulco.

Regarding academia, CRC was the basis for two other research projects. The first was on interterritorial coproduction of knowledge around resilience and water basin management in Mexico. The second centred on a critical reflection about the intersection between urban resilience, smart cities, and civil society participation in three metropolitan areas of Mexico, including AMA. In addition, the CRC project served as a framework for students to develop community-based projects in the context of their Master’s programme and could carry out a professional stay. These projects have contributed to updating the academic work in Coyuca. In sum, CRC contributed to launch a more articulated corpus on Coyuca and Acapulco around urban development, disaster risk and climate change. Moreover, CRC integrated new material and pedagogic methods into the UAG Master’s programme in Management of Sustainable Development, including readings on gender inequality, intersectionality, and coproduction. This is crucial in local universities, such as UAG and ITA, where future local professionals are trained.

Discussion

The existing literature on knowledge coproduction tends to overlook the situation from which academics initiate this process; and therefore, neglect the diversity of capacities of scientific communities and institutions. To address this gap, I traced the development of the CRC project, exploring the implications and complications pertinent to researchers regarding knowledge coproduction. I identified four major complications: (1) lack and fragmentation of data, information, and knowledge; (2) limited research and institutional capacity of local academics and universities; (3) deeply rooted exclusion and hierarchical modes of governance in which participation, especially from women, is rare; (4) limited experience in planning processes. These results reveal that researchers’ engagement in knowledge coproduction was shaped by the peripheral situation regarding the urban and academia. Research capacities, resources, and connections, and ultimately, the trajectory of the scientific communities and institutions influenced knowledge coproduction. Therefore, I argue that it is vital to consider the specific circumstances—associated with urban and knowledge production systems—from which academics engage in coproduction. This implies connecting coproduction not only to broader political context (Turnhout et al., 2020), but also to knowledge production system. To this end, I identify the following key elements that can be contemplated when planning coproduction processes: (i) relevance for local researchers and academic institutions, (ii) integration of local academics and engagement with local scientific knowing, (iii) establishment of long-term alliances with local scientific communities, and (iv) generation of relevant outputs for them (Table 1).

Table 1.

Connecting knowledge coproduction to broader knowledge production system.

Knowledge coproduction - key principles	Elements to consider for connecting coproduction to broader academic context and addressing uneven knowledge production system
Context-based, locally embedded, and flexible processes	Relevance of coproduction process for local researchers and academic institutions (alignment with research agendas and interests, and personal and institutional trajectories)
Transdisciplinarity (integration diverse actors and knowledge systems)	Integration of local academics and students in the design and implementation of knowledge coproduction, including theory building.
	Engagement with local scientific knowing. To this end, strategies of translation and circulation of knowledge are needed.
Long-term collaborations	Establishment of long-term alliances with local scientific communities. This requires mapping existing (dis)connections between researchers, students and academic institutions and establishing explicit strategies for building trust. It also requires creating spaces to meet, discuss, and cross-fertilize ideas
Usable outputs and actionable knowledge	Generation of relevant outputs for local scientific communities. Besides academic papers, scientific outputs could include textbooks, handbooks, seminar series, and training programmes.

The results also reveal that the position of power of local researchers varied. Academics and their institutions had a position of privilege and status, which was used to implement the project (interest and enrol stakeholders) and attempt to shift uneven power relations among state actors and the civil society. However, they also were in position of weakness. They had limited capacities, resources, and connections and needed to cede power to other actors. This resonates with Foucault’ understanding of power as a ‘multi-layered structure’ involving both ‘potestas’ (to be allowed or not) and ‘potentia’ (to have the capacity or ability to) (Braidotti, 2015 -present, 2019). Therefore, considering power asymetries between academic and non-academic actors is of utmost importance (Mitlin et al., 2020; Turnhout et al., 2020), especially since sciences have privileged alliances with certain actors, including the State, while severing ties and disqualifying other knowledges and actors such as the civil society (Stengers, 2019). Nevertheless, I argue that it is crucial to consider the multi-layered structure of power, in particular, with regards to academics situated at the periphery of the urban and academia, as it is from this double structure – being ‘the subjects of’ (positive power) and ‘the subject to’(negative power) (Braidotti, 2015-present) – that they engage in coproducing knowledge and planning just cities.

Regarding coproduction outputs and outcomes, the CRC experience shows that the elaboration of an adaptation strategy for Coyuca´s urban lagoon system, was not possible in Coyuca’s academic and urban context, and thus, it became secondary. In contrast, the most valuable outputs were the encounters, connections, the development of capacities, and alliance-building from which other actions and research projects were developed after CRC was completed. Therefore, I argue that knowledge coproduction relates to long-term processes that require nurturing capacities and alliances for making transformational changes in modes of governance (Watson, 2014), and ultimately, building not only just cities and but also a more just knowledge system. This converges with the understanding that, rather than making radical changes, coproduction supports the creation of conditions from which just cites can emerged (Miszczak and Patel, 2018; Patel et al., 2020; Perry and Atherton, 2017). Specifically, seeking to cultivate such conditions at the periphery of the urban and academia, knowledge coproduction could primarily focus on co-generating (or articulating) data and knowledge; building research capacities within and outside academia, and disrupt traditional scientific practices and power dynamics within and outside academia. In this sense the value of coproduction for planning just cites resides in the fact that it might allow to make lateral moves and imagine and practice other ways for researching and planning.

This paper centred on CRC research team complications. Future research could focus on thoroughly exploring the potentialities at the periphery of the urban and academia. Future research also could adopt a longitudinal approach and comprehensively analyse the outputs and outcomes and how they shape not only the practices of local researcher, but also, those of other actors, and the becoming of Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. Finally, future research could connect knowledge coproduction to feminist perspectives on sciences. From this perspective science is neither ‘the cog of political apparatuses so intertwined in power games that there would be nothing more to hope from it, except to start from scratch’, nor a field that must be protected ‘from the political stakes that would pollute it’ (Zitouni, 2021: 38). On the contrary, scientific research is considered as an adventure rather a conquest that has the purpose of generating other futures (Zitouni, 2021), and in which scientists are required to enter laboratories, abandoning the idea of a neutral position (i.e., without any interest at stake), and consider the discussions that take place outside the laboratories (or textual accounts, in the case of social scientists) (Latour, 2005). The connection of this perspective to knowledge coproduction can contribute to better understand the linkages between planning theory and practice.

Conclusion

‘We need sharper focus on the complex singularities that constitute our respective locations’ (Braidotti, 2019: 53).

Coproduction has gained traction over the past decade in urban development and planning as appropriate approach to face the most pressing challenges of our times. The associated literature has focused on diverse topics including the coproduction of knowledge, understood here as academic-initiated coproduction or processes in which knowledge production plays a central role. The bulk of studies on this specific topic discusses principles; however, in recent years, studies have called into question power dynamics between academic and non-academic actors and examined coproduction’s outcomes. Nevertheless, the literature on knowledge coproduction considers academia as a homogeneous category, paying little attention to the diversity of capacities, resources, and networks among scientific communities and institutions. I noted that this gap is particularly significant at the periphery of the urban and academia, understood as a situation rather than a mere location. To address this gap, in this paper I explored the CRC project based on an academic-initiated coproduction process to develop a gender-sensitive and participatory climate change adaptation strategy for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. Using ANT, I unfolded knowledge coproduction (dis)associations, revealing the implications and complications of the process for the research team and the role of coproduction for planning just cities.

The results show four major complications faced by the research team. First, lack of data and knowledge not only about the communities studied but also about AMA in general. Second, limited research capacities at individual and institutional levels related to a lack of access to the global knowledge production system, as well as insufficient human and financial resources and capacities to conduct research. Third, modes of governance characterised by hierarchical power relations and gender inequality. Fourth, little planning experience which constrained the coproduction of an adaptation strategy for Coyuca’s urban lagoon system. These results reveal how the urban and academic circumstances shaped knowledge coproduction process. Therefore, I argue that it is vital to consider the specific circumstances—associated with urban and academic systems—from which academics engage in coproduction. This implies connecting coproduction to broader political and knowledge production contexts. The results also reveal how researchers and universities were in position of privilege as well as weakness. Therefore, I argue that it is crucial to consider the multi-layered structure of power, specifically regarding academics situated at the periphery of the urban and academia, as it is from this double structure (to be allowed or not, and to have the capacity or ability to), that such academics engage in knowledge coproduction and planning just cities. The results also reveal that the most significant outcomes included the entanglement of actors and practices after the project was completed, rather than the development of a climate adaptation strategy for Coyuca. Therefore, I argue that knowledge coproduction relates to long-term processes that require nurturing capacities and alliances for making transformational changes, and ultimately, building not only just cities and but also a more just knowledge system.

For its part, the use of ANT contributes to understand coproduction, and ultimately planning as an uncertain process, an adventure that can fail at any moment. Accordingly, ANT enables move aside perspectives that envision coproduction and planning as ‘The solution’ for current urban issues, including climate change. In addition, ANT and the repertoire of translation emerge as useful framework not only for tracing but also guiding coproduction-as planning processes that could foster the creation of collectives for co-creating just cities. Finally, the use of ANT makes visible how planning practices and theory building are intertwined and how the participation of certain scientific communities in those activities might be constrained. In this sense, planning theory, including its vibrant ‘southern turn’(Mukhopadhyay et al., 2021; Watson, 2016) requires to consider southern cities as sites of theory building, as well as southern researchers and scientific communities as partners, democratizing and decolonizing knowledge.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper is based on the project ‘Coyuca Resilient to Climate’ financed by the Initiative Climate Resilient Cities in Latin America led by the International Development Research Center (IDRC), the Climate Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) and the Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (FFLA).

This article is part of the Special Issue “Coproducing the Just City: Interrogating the Civil Society/Academy Interface” curated and edited by Barbara Lipietz and Agnès Deboulet.

ORCID iD

Hector Becerril

Author biography

Héctor Becerril is a Research Fellow at the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico. He holds a PhD in Development Planning from The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, University College London. Since 2015 he has been commissioned to the Autonomous University of Guerrero to work on urban planning, governance, and risk issues. Through his research and practice, Hector is committed to contribute to imagine and build alternative research and planning practices that recognise, value, and mobilise the multiplicity of knowledges and actors that (trans)form our cities.

References

Arreguín

López

Rodríguez

Montero

(eds) (2015) Atlas de vulnerabilidad hídrica en México ante el cambio climático. Jiutepec, Morelos: Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua.

Austrin

Farnsworth

(2005) Hybrid genres: fieldwork, detection and the method of Bruno Latour. Qualitative Research 5(2): 147–165.

Becerril

López

Guzmán

(2020) Collaborative planning for water resources management: a methodological proposal based on actor-network theory. Entreciencias: Diálogos en la Sociedad del Conocimiento 8(22): 1–17. DOI: 10.22201/enesl.20078064e.2020.22.76412.

Braidotti

(2019) A theoretical framework for the critical Posthumanities. Theory, Culture and Society 36(6): 31–61.

Callon

(1986) Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et de marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L’année sociologique (1940/1948-) 36: 169–208.

Castán Broto

Ortiz

Lipietz

, et al. (2022) Co-production outcomes for urban equality: learning from different trajectories of citizens’ involvement in urban change. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 4(July). DOI: 10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100179.

Chaparro

JJG

(2009) Planeacion urbana En Mexico: un analisis critico Sobre Su Proceso De evolucion. Urbano 12(19): 52–63.

CDKN (n.d.) Climate resilient cities in Latin America. Available at: https://cdkn.org/project/project-climate-resilient-cities-in-latin-america (accessed 18 August 2022).

CONACYT (2020) Programa institucional 2020-2024 del Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. Available at: https://conacyt.mx/conacyt/programa-institucional-2020-2024/ (accessed 18 August 2022).

10.

CONAPO (2016) Indice de marginacíon por entidad federativa y munucipio 2015. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Población.

11.

CONEVAL (n.d.) CONEVAL InfoPobreza. Available at: http://sistemas.coneval.org.mx/InfoPobreza/ (accessed 13 December 2019).

12.

CRCLatam (2016) Terms of References.

13.

Culwick

Washbourne

Anderson

PML

, et al. (2019) CityLab reflections and evolutions: nurturing knowledge and learning for urban sustainability through co-production experimentation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39(May): 9–16.

14.

Galland

(2018) Mexico. Disp 54(1): 38–41.

15.

INECC (2016) Vulnerabilidad al cambio climático en los municipios de México. Available at: https://www.gob.mx/inecc/acciones-y-programas/vulnerabilidad-al-cambio-climatico-en-los-municipios-de-mexico (accessed 13 May 2018).

16.

IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Jasonoff

(2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasonoff

(ed) State of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 13–45.

18.

Kanai

Grant

Jianu

(2018) Cities on and off the map: a bibliometric assessment of urban globalisation research. Urban Studies 55(12): 2569–2585.

19.

Kong

Qian

(2019) Knowledge circulation in urban geography/urban studies, 1990–2010: testing the discourse of Anglo-American hegemony through publication and citation patterns. Urban Studies 56(1): 44–80.

20.

Korhonen-Kurki

Bor

Faehnle

, et al. (2022) Empirical insights into knowledge-weaving processes in strategic environmental research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Epub ahead of print 4 mars 2022. DOI: 10.1080/1523908x.2022.2044296.

21.

Latour

(1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

22.

Latour

(2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Latour

(2012) Cogitamus. Seis Cartas Sobre Las Humanidades Científicas. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

24.

Latour

(2013) An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

25.

Lee

(2022) Who gets hired at the top? The academic caste system theory in the planning academy. Journal of Planning Education and Research: Epub ahead of print 2 September 2022 DOI: 10.1177/0739456X221121611.

26.

Lopez

Rodriguez

Barragan

M del C

, et al. (2012) Turismo y contaminación ambiental en la periferia urbana de Acapulco: Ciudad Renacimiento. El Periplo Sustentable (23): 113–141.

27.

McFarlane

(2011) Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

28.

Miller

Wyborn

(2020) Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environmental Science and Policy 113: 88–95.

29.

Miszczak

Patel

(2018) The role of engaged scholarship and co-production to address urban challenges: a case study of the Cape Town Knowledge Transfer Programme. South African Geographical Journal 100(2): 233–248.

30.

Mitlin

(2008) With and beyond the state - Co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization 20(2): 339–360.

31.

Mitlin

Bartlett

(2018) Editorial : Co-production – key ideas. Environment and Urbanization 30(2): 355–366.

32.

Mitlin

Bennett

Horn

, et al. (2020) Knowledge matters: the potential contribution of the coproduction of research. European Journal of Development Research 32(3): 544–559.

33.

Mukhopadhyay

Town

Africa

(2021) Introduction: planning theories from ‘southern turn’ to ‘deeply rooted / situated in the South / context’: a project in the making. plaNext - Next Generation Planning 11(2021): 9–25.

34.

Norström

Cvitanovic

Löf

, et al. (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3): 182–190.

35.

Nugraha

Wesely

Ruszczyk

, et al. (2023) Overlooked cities: shifting the gaze in research and practice in global urban studies. Cities 133(July 2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.104044.

36.

Odume

Amaka-Otchere

Onyima

, et al. (2021) Pathways, contextual and cross-scale dynamics of science-policy-society interactions in transdisciplinary research in African cities. Environmental Science and Policy 125: 116–125.

37.

OECD (2019) Education at glance 2019: OECD indicators. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_MEX_Spanish.pdf (accessed 18 august 2022).

38.

Ostrom

(1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24(6): 1073–1087.

39.

Osuteye

Ortiz

Lípietz

, et al. (2019) Knowledge co-production for urban equality. KNOW Working Paper (1): 14. Available at: https://www.urban-know.com/no-1-know-working-paper (accessed 15 January 2020).

40.

Palacios Ortega

Martínez García

Gutiérrez Ávila

(2015) Planeación urbana, vulnerabilidad y riesgo por fenómenos hidrometeorológicos, en los espacios periurbanos de Acapulco, Guerrero. In: 20° Encuentro Nacional sobre Desarrollo Regional en México, Cuernavaca, Mexico, 17–20 November 2015. Cuernavaca: AMECIDER – CRIM – UNAM.

41.

Palacios

(2013) Dinámica Territorial En El Espacio Periurbano de Acapulco. El Caso de Llano Largo. Mexico: Colección Instituto Tecnológico de Acapulco.

42.

Patel

Marrengane

Smit

, et al. (2020) Knowledge co-production in Sub-Saharan African cities: building capacity for the urban age. In: Gasparatos

Naidoo

Ahmed

, et al. (eds) Sustainability Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa II. Insights from Eastern and Southern Africa. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 189–214.

43.

Perry

Atherton

(2017) Beyond critique: the value of co-production in realising just cities? Local Environment 22: 36–51.

44.

Polk

(2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65: 110–122.

45.

Ren

(2021) The peripheral turn in Global Urban Studies: theory, evidence, sites. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 26: 0–8.

46.

Rodríguez-Herrera

Ruz-Vargas

Hernández-Rodríguez

(2012) Riesgo y vulnerabilidad en Llano Largo, Acapulco: la tormenta Henriette. Economía Sociedad y Territorio 12(39): 425–447.

47.

Ruz-Vargas

(2014) La vulnerabilidad del paraíso. PhD Thesis, Universidad Autonoma de Guerrero, Mexico.

48.

Simon

Palmer

Riise

, et al. (2018) The challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production: from unilocal to comparative research. Environment and Urbanization 30(2): 481–500.

49.

Stengers

(2019) Otra Ciencia Es Posible. Manifiesto Por Una Desaceleración de Las Ciencias. Barcelona: FAE - NED.

50.

Turnhout

Metze

Wyborn

, et al. (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 15–21.

51.

Walker

Boamah

(2019) Making the invisible hyper-visible: knowledge production and the gendered power nexus in critical urban studies. Human Geography 12(2): 36–50.

52.

Watson

(2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning - The difference. Planning Theory and Practice 15(1): 62–76.

53.

Watson

(2016) Shifting approaches to planning theory: Global North and South. Urban Planning 1(4): 32–41.

54.

Wyborn

Datta

Montana

, et al. (2019) Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 319–346.

55.

Zitouni

(2021) Héritières de la Révolution scientifique : d’autres figures et manières de faire science. Nouvelles question féministes 40(2): 35–51.

56.

Zurba

Petriello

Madge

, et al. (2022) Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut. Sustainability Science 17(2): 449–467.