This document examines the impact of the coevolutionary approach to Nature-based Solutions (henceforth: NBS) on methodology, both in a theoretical and practical sense. It distinguishes between theory-based methodology and practical methods based on empirical evidence and experience. This approach differs from other related documents in the COEVOLVERS project. Within WP2, it connects D 2.1 and D.2.3: The former elaborates on the theory of the coevolutionary approach to NBS as technology (henceforth, CEA-NBS), and the latter summarizes practical experiences in applying coevolutionary ideas and methods in the Living Labs. D 2.2 also relates to WP1 deliverable D 1.3, which provides an overview of co-creation methods for NBS relevant to the COEVOLVERS LL. Deliverable 2.2 also discusses specific methods, often presented in boxes, but does not aim to provide a comprehensive overview. We refer to exemplary methods to illustrate the general arguments presented here on the methodological implications of CEA-NBS.
This approach also suggests that we focus on including non-human species in NBS methods. The literature on co-creation methods is abundant in the fields of eco-social transformation, community resilience under environmental stress, and related project management. Many compilations of methods exist, particularly under European projects such as HORIZON. This report does not duplicate these variations but introduces a theoretically grounded systematic reflection on methods that includes not only the methods specific to those themes but also general social and behavioural research: We claim that the inclusion of non-human species in NBS research is also productive in suggesting new methodological thinking in transdisciplinary research beyond that specific theme. In this sense, our work joins the ongoing debate over how to overcome anthropocentrism in the social sciences and the humanities, sometimes dubbed “posthumanism” or “de-anthropocentrization”. In this effort, we always aim to show how theoretical concerns and reflections translate into research practice. For example, we consider questions such as the design of
standard surveys about attitudes and beliefs and argue that CEA-NBS provides criteria for selecting some methods and sidelining others (for example, we argue that vignettes are a preferable way to ask questions in surveys). Our goal is to provide a systematic framework for building a coherent toolbox of CEA-NBS (for example, vignettes match the method of story-telling). Such practical recommendations follow from general reflections on which scientific categories, concepts and terms have “more-than-human” qualities and can, therefore, help to overcome the human/non-human divide in theorizing behaviour and practices, and thereby also in the concrete doing of the NBS on the ground.