3.4.2.2 Knowledge-production processes

Knowledge production to support the governance of Earth system tipping processes should be multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary to facilitate knowledge co-production between scientific and non-scientific actors and provide concrete decision support tools (Thompson et al., 2017;  Mach et al., 2020; Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Turnhout et al., 2020; Pohl et al., 2021). Co-production can be defined as “iterative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future.” (Norström et al., 2020). It recognises that scientific ideas evolve together with social identities, political discourses and institutions.

Participatory approaches to knowledge production have a number of benefits regarding tipping point governance. They enable co-production by engaging participants with different expertise (scientists, policymakers and other stakeholders), promoting active learning and anticipatory capacity building (Galende-Sánchez and Sorman 2021). This approach enables relevant frame development, fosters inclusiveness and – depending on the selection and power representativeness of the participants – the use of context-specific expertise (e.g. local knowledge) with actor-relevant outcomes. Second, participatory approaches can mitigate some of the specific learning challenges related to tipping points. For example, dynamic simulation exercises provide opportunities to virtually experience the passing of tipping points, especially their time-related characteristics like nonlinearity, to identify lessons for governance and risk management today.

Building situated and context-specific knowledge for the governance of tipping points at different scales of action entails moving away from linear, flat notions and gap-filling modes of learning. Knowledge development needs to happen in a distributed fashion, at different scales of action and taking into account context-specific factors. Multi-scale knowledge-production systems facilitate the generation of solutions-oriented knowledge that can easily be shared in a distributed network and adjusted in different locations. 

Rapid and effective knowledge sharing and information flows are essential for polycentric, networked governance approaches to ESTPs. A fundamental concern is the need for transparency and open access to scientific knowledge, especially climate models. Open models and data access allow knowledge users to better understand model results and adapt them to their own context. Open-source platforms like Wikipedia or GitHub have an important role in this context. Further, there is a need to connect and integrate different kinds of knowledge generated in distributed networks of agents who work, learn and share their experiences in managing complex systems’ dynamics at different scales of action. This integration work could take the form of transformative boundary organisations (Tàbara et al., 2017), which purposefully integrate multiple sources of knowledge and focus on complex-systems thinking and learning. 

There is an increased need for processes that can engage governance actors in future thinking and related capacity building for anticipatory decision making about ESTPs. This can be facilitated by bringing decision makers into structured conversations with academics as well as artists and storytellers to facilitate structured, transdisciplinary exploration of multiple possible futures (Galafassi et al., 2018; Galafassi, Tàbara, and Heras, 2018). The aims of ‘futures’ work include widening understanding of plausible and feasible developments based on the anticipation of interactions between a range of environmental, political, economic, technological, scientific and social factors, and challenging the assumptions embedded in conceptualising the future. Such processes help decision makers switch their mode of thinking about the future from predictive to anticipatory and facilitate a reorientation from navigating ‘what will be’ to thinking through alternative ‘what-ifs’. They can also help participants identify policy instruments that may be robust across a range of plausible futures (Gabriel 2014; Pereira et al., 2021).

Fostering complex systems thinking has to be a key component of governance systems for Earth system tipping processes. Complex systems thinking is fundamental for understanding and effectively addressing tipping dynamics. It provides not only analytic capacities regarding the causes and characteristics of tipping processes, but enables the systemic search for solutions. Science-policy engagement on tipping points thus requires novel approaches that involve unconventional mixed methods. A combination of qualitative scenarios, expert judgements, roleplay simulations and agent-based models, and even fictional narratives and storyline development, should be used more frequently to complement the physical modelling approaches most commonly used to create knowledge about ESTPs (Gambhir et al., 2019; Elsawah et al., 2020; van Beek, Milkoreit, et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2023). This diverse range of approaches can support the search for response strategies that are robust to a broad range of possible future outcomes. Some illustrative examples of such novel methods are outlined below…

Role-playing simulations and ‘serious games’ can effectively support learning about complex systems, including the temporal dynamics of complex change processes like Earth system tipping dynamics over multiple decades (van Beek et al., 2022). Beyond knowledge, serious games can affect players’ risk perceptions and agency, fostering anticipatory decision making. Simulations already play an important role in supporting decision making under uncertainty (Flood et al., 2018; Mangnus et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2019; Fleming et al., 2020; Galeote et al., 2021).

Participatory, multi-scale scenario development involves creating a range of plausible future scenarios that encompass different trajectories of change. These scenarios can span different scales, and help in understanding how different drivers interact and shape potential outcomes in the short and long term, including cascading effects. This approach draws on knowledge from various disciplines and sectors (environmental science, sociology, economics, politics, and local and Indigenous communities) and integrates both quantitative and qualitative methods. The method can foster learning about the dynamics and impacts of ESTPs across different timeframes and geographical scales, illuminating, for example, how vulnerability to impacts is distributed across space and time. By considering multiple timeframes, researchers and policymakers can identify critical time-sensitive interventions and develop response strategies that will be robust across a range of potential future outcomes, thus linking knowledge development to decision making. The scenario development process should be participatory, enhancing the role of stakeholders to facilitate mutual learning and co-production of actor- and context-relevant knowledge (Biggs et al., 2007; Shaw et al., 2009; Elsawah et al., 2020; Kliskey et al., 2023; Lazurko, Schweizer, and Armitage, 2023).

Combining multi-scale scenario development with other forms of qualitative engagement can support the assessment of near- and long-term impacts, response capacities and vulnerabilities (i.e. using surveys and online democracy tools with many participants, and small focus group deliberation). This approach can capture diverse perspectives beyond academic expertise, including local or Indigenous knowledge, and contextual insights that can generate a deeper understanding of the social, cultural and ethical dimensions of governing Earth system tipping processes. Iteration is important for this approach, with scenario development and qualitative engagement informing each other (Alcamo, 2008; Trutnevyte et al., 2019; Prehofer et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2023; Jahel et al., 2023).