Knowledge co-production in the Helge å catchment: a comparative analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview map, spatial extent of mappings and scenario analyses in the four projects, and land covers in the Helge å catchment area. Based on Fastighetskartan from © Lantmäteriet.

Table 1. Overview of the four futures-oriented research projects that were included in this comparative analysis.

Project name	Years active	Funding	Institution(s)	Research group
INTEGRAL	2011– 2015	EU FP7	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences	Ida Wallin, Vilis Brukas, Renats Trubins, Ola Sallnäs
ALTERFOR	2016–2020	EU Horizon 2020	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Project partner: Södra Skogsägarna & Kronoberg County Administrative Board	Isak Lodin, Vilis Brukas, Ljusk-Ola Eriksson, Adam Felton, Matts Lindbladh, Eric Agestam, Kristina Wallertz
BONUS MIRACLE	2015–2018	EU FP7 through BONUS; national research funders in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Poland and Sweden	Linköping University, Uppsala University, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, University of Copenhagen	Karin Tonderski, Tina-Simone Neset, Neil Powell, Thao Do, René Capell, Johannes Carolus, Søren Marcus Pedersen
SRC-KVB	2015–2019	Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)	Stockholm Resilience Centre Project partner: Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Office	Katja Malmborg, Elin Enfors-Kautsky, Albert V. Norström, Lisen Schultz

Figure 2. Analytical framework for comparing knowledge co-production processes using Settings, Synthesis and Diffusion dimensions. Settings include the elements Research aims and methodologies, Contributing knowledge-holders and approach to participation and Problem-framing. This dimension corresponds with the Problem-framing and team building phase in Lang et al. (2012). Synthesis consists of the element Knowledge creation process and corresponds with the Co-creation phase in Lang et al. (2012) as well as the Inventory of synthesis (Defila and Di Giulio 2015). Diffusion consists of the elements Knowledge outputs and outcomes and Usability of produced knowledge, which corresponds with the (Re-)integration and application phase in Lang et al. (2012).

Table 2. Interviewed key participants, including their affiliations and which projects they participated in.

Participant	Affiliation	INTEGRAL	ALTERFOR	BONUS MIRACLE	SRC-KVB
A	Farmers or forest owners’ association	X
B	Farmers or forest owners’ association	X
C	Governmental agency	X
D	Governmental agency		X	X	X
E	Municipality			X	X
F	Industry representative		X
G	Municipality				X
H	Farmers or forest owners’ association			X

Table 3. Research aims and methodologies of the four projects.

Aspect	INTEGRAL	ALTERFOR	BONUS MIRACLE	SRC-KVB
Sustainability challenge in focus, as defined by project aim	Understand trade-offs in forest management with regards to future ecosystem service provision. Focus on land-use structures and key drivers of change.	Examine alternative forest management models and assess the impact of different management models in terms of their capacity to deliver ecosystem services and reduce socio-ecological risks on the European and landscape level.	Generate knowledge to reduce nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea Region. Analysis of both governance systems and modeled biophysical responses.	To map multiple ecosystem services across the Helge å catchment, generate a social-ecological system understanding for the study area, and develop a strategic action plan towards a positive future vision.
Process aim	Generating transdisciplinary knowledge about the project topic. Integration of results in decision-support tools and making recommendations for policy.	Facilitate implementation of desired forest management models in Kronoberg county/the upper Helge å catchment and in other cases in Europe. Improve cross-national knowledge transfer regarding their benefits, costs, etc.	Enact social learning process that would lead to the identification of new configurations for governance.	Develop tools, facilitate learning and create spaces for cross-sectoral collaboration to address complex sustainability challenges using a resilience approach.
Targeted ecosystem services	Provisioning: Forest production Regulating: Carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water quality (leakage of mercury and dissolved organic content)	Provisioning: Forest production Regulating: Carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water quality Cultural: Recreational and aesthetic value	Regulating: Water quality (losses of N and P) and flood control.	Provisioning: Forest, milk, meat, fruit, food and fodder crop production Regulating: N and P retention, water quality, landscape diversity, Cultural: Outdoor recreation, hunting, horseback riding, biodiversity heritage
Theory of change	Top-down: produce empirical-based evidence that can guide policy making. Theoretical approach: Logics of human behaviour incl. homo economicus, - sociologicus and – interpreter.	Top-down: Researchers make alliances with powerful actors. Strategies are hard to implement if they are not in line with the interests of the powerful actors. Theoretical approach: Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model (Böcher 2016)	Bottom-up: Local practitioners’ practices lead to change. Social learning among stakeholders is used for adopting research. Theoretical approach: Soft Systems Methodology	Bottom-up: Local practitioners’ practices lead to change. Aim to highlight participants’ own agency and to create/acknowledge important strategic alliances. Theoretical approach: Wayfinder/Resilience thinking (Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2021)

Table 4. Range of affiliations of participating actors.

All projects	Forestry sector representatives (land owners’ associations, industry representatives and nature protection) Representatives from public administration (municipalities, county boards, national agencies)
BONUS MIRACLE & SRC-KVB	Agriculture sector representatives (farmers’ association)
INTEGRAL & SRC-KVB	Regional business development organizations Associations for outdoor recreation

Figure 3. Stylized model of a knowledge creation process and the different types of activities it may involve.

Table 5. Knowledge outputs that were produced, with an emphasis on those outputs that are comparable between the projects.

Knowledge output	INTEGRAL	ALTERFOR	BONUS MIRACLE	SRC-KVB
Vision (normative) defined by process participants	Living countryside with high quality of life. Certified forests, processing industry focused on renewable forest-based alternatives. Collaboration between actors.	County administrative board: Increased nature values in production forests. Södra Skogsägarna: Increased wood production.	A broad range of visions representing different stakeholders’ aspirations, such as improved water quality, improved conditions for aquatic species, improved understanding and use of ecosystem services	A mosaic landscape. Diversity of jobs connected to the landscape. Focus on quality of life. People have an interest in and value the outdoors.
Key sustainability challenges defined by process participants	Weather situation; View upon/Knowledge about the landscape; Ownership rights; Forest market development; EU policies; “Green” values; National rules and legislation; Taxation; Age structure of population; Owners’ knowledge and skills	County administrative board: Fragmentation of nature values in production-dominated landscapes. Södra Skogsägarna: Restrictions on production due to nature conservation.	Brownification and related issues such as aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, hydroelectricity, tourism and nutrient enrichment.	Brownification; Species diversity in production forest; Local production of sustainable food.
Scenarios – Typology by Börjeson et al. (2006)^1	4 explorative-external scenarios developed by exploring different manifestations of important drivers of change (factors); 1 normative scenario (see Vision above)	Multiple explorative-strategic model simulations produced by combining global scenarios (climate & timber market) with treatments of various management strategies	Multiple explorative scenarios of modelled hydrological and hydro-chemical effects of different development pathways, climate and land use change scenarios	1 normative vision (see Vision above)
Ecosystem service (ES) analyses	Simulations of ES provision modeled for study area based on scenarios and forest management regimes. Number of ES: 4 Spatial resolution: One value for whole study area Temporal resolution: Current and in 25–30 years	Simulations of ES under different management regimes using explorative scenarios. Number of ES: 5 Spatial resolution: One value for whole study area Temporal resolution: Current and in 100 years	Simulations of water flow and nutrient transport in different explorative scenarios. Number of ES: 2 Spatial resolution: One value for each sub-catchment around the Baltic Sea Temporal resolution: Current and in 15–35 years	Mapping of provision of individual ES and distribution of ES bundles. Number of ES: 15 Spatial resolution: One value for each municipality in study area Temporal resolution: Current
Additional components	Analysis of forest owner types; ABM as preparatory step for ES scenarios; Roadmap of actions	Global scenarios of climate and market development	Analysis of water governance system and agency of stakeholder groups; “Roadmap” action points; Economic analysis (cost-effectiveness, and qualitative cost-benefit); Tool to visualize model simulations in workshop	Historical timeline of land use change; Conceptual system models; Analysis of deep leverage points for change; Strategic action plan
Knowledge outputs in peer-reviewed publications ^2	2 papers (Wallin et al. 2016, Trubins et al. 2019)	3 papers (Nordström et al. 2019, Lodin et al. 2020, Lodin and Brukas 2021)	4 papers (Carolus et al. 2018, 2020, Zilans et al. 2019, Chambers et al. 2022, 2019)	2 papers (Malmborg et al. 2021, 2022)

Lemos MC, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Baja K, Bednarek AT, Dewulf A, Fieseler C, Goodrich KA, Jagannathan K, Klenk N, et al. 2018. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat Sustain. 1(12):722–724. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dick B. 2021. Facilitating participatory research. In: Burns D, Howard J, Ospina SM, editors. The SAGE handbook of participatory research and inquiry. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd; p. 207–219.

 Google Scholar

Böcher M. 2016. How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. For Policy Econ. 68:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bornemark J. 2017. Neutrality or phronetic skills: a paradox in the praxis of citizen dialogues organized by municipal administration. Pedagogika Spoleczna. 3(65):51–66.

 Google Scholar

Wall TU, Meadow AM, Horganic A. 2017. Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather Climate Society. 9(1):95–107. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0008.1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, et al. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain. 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Malmborg K, Enfors-Kautsky E, Schultz L, Norström AV. 2022. Embracing complexity in landscape management: learning and impacts of a participatory resilience assessment. Ecosyst People. 18(1):241–257. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2061596.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marre J-B, Billé R. 2019. A demand-driven approach to ecosystem services economic valuation: lessons from Pacific island countries and territories. Ecosyst Serv. 39:100975. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100975.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar