Facilitating cross-sectoral assessments of local climate change vulnerability

References

• André K, Jonsson CA. 2013. Science-practice interactions linked to climate adaptation in two contexts: municipal planning and forestry in Sweden. J Environ Plann Man. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.854717
   Google Scholar
• Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL. 2007. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ. 60:726–742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boujut J-F, Blanco E. 2003. Intermediary objects as a means to Foster co-operation in engineering design. Comp Support Comp W. 12:205–219. doi:10.1023/A:1023980212097
   Google Scholar
• Burger J, Gochfeld M, Powers CW, Kosson DS, Halverson J, Siekaniec G, Morkill A, Patrick R, Duffy LK, Barnes D. 2007. Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. J Environ Manage. 85:232–244. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnard P. 1991. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurs Educ Today. 11:461–466. doi:10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-Y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlile PR. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci. 13:442–455. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB. 2007. New assessment methods and the characterization of future conditions. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, editors. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 133–171.
   Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, Guston D, Jager J, Mitchell R. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornwall A, Jewkes R. 1995. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 41:1667–1676. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Silva J, Kernaghan S, Luque A. 2012. A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 4:125–145. doi:10.1080/19463138.2012.718279
   Google Scholar
• de la Vega-Leinert A, Schröter D, Leemans R, Fritsch U, Pluimers J. 2008. A stakeholder dialogue on European vulnerability. Reg Environ Change. 8:109–124. doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0047-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MS. 2008. Defining the public, defining sociology: hybrid science-public relations and boundary-work in early American sociology. Public Underst Sci. 18:5–22. doi:10.1177/0963662506071283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazey I, Kesby M, Evely A, Latham I, Wagatora D, Hagasua J-E, Reed MS, Christie M. 2010. A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment in the Solomon Islands. Global Environ Change. 20:713–728. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsyth T. 2003. Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Friman M. 2010. Understanding boundary work through discourse theory: inter/disciplines and interdisciplinarity. Sci Stud. 23:5–19.
   Google Scholar
• Füssel HM, Klein RJT. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change. 75:301–329. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal U, Yoo Y, Boland RJ. 2004. The dynamics of boundary objects, social infrastructures and social identities. Sprouts. 4:193–206.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev. 48:781–795. doi:10.2307/2095325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaas E. 2013. Reconstructing Noah’s Ark: integration of climate change adaptation into Swedish public policy [doctoral dissertation]. Linköping: Linköping University.
   Google Scholar
• Glaas E, Jonsson A, Hjerpe M, Andersson-Sköld Y. 2010. Managing climate change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in Sweden. Local Environ. 15:525–539. doi:10.1080/13549839.2010.487525
   Google Scholar
• Glicken J. 2000. Getting stakeholder participation “right”: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environ Sci Policy. 3:305–310. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00105-2
   Google Scholar
• Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C. 2012. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy. 18:52–65. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hisschemöller M, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P. 2001. The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessments. Integratass. 2:57–72.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S, Wynne B. 1998. Science and decision making. In: Rayner S, Malone EI, editors. Human choice and climate change. Ohio: Battelle Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson DW, Johnson FP. 1997. Joining together: group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson A, Hjerpe M, Andersson-Sköld Y, Glaas E, André K, Simonsson L. 2012. Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability: experiences from participatory vulnerability assessments in the lower Göta Älv Catchment, Sweden. Local Environ. 17:735–750. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.685880
   Google Scholar
• Keivani R. 2010. A review of the main challenges to urban sustainability. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 1:5–16. doi:10.1080/19463131003704213
   Google Scholar
• Kloprogge P, van der Sluijs JP. 2006. The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. Climatic Change. 75:359–389. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0362-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen K, Gerger-Swartling Å, Powell N, May B, Plummer R, Simonsson L, Osbeck M. 2012. A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and local climate change adaptation professionals: cases from Sweden, Canada and Indonesia. Environ Sci Policy. 23:12–23. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen K, Gunnarsson-Östling U. 2009. Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures. Habitat Int. 33:260–266. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environ Change. 15:57–68. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly. 29:335–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand E. 2007. Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science. Environ Sci Policy. 10:39–47. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone EL, Engle NL. 2011. Evaluating regional vulnerability to climate change: purposes and methods. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Climate Change. 2:462–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser SC, Ekstrom JA. 2011. Taking ownership of climate change: participatory adaptation planning in two local case studies from California. J Environ Stud Sci. 1:63–74. doi:10.1007/s13412-011-0012-5
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien K, Sygna L, Haugen JE. 2004. Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Climatic Change. 64:193–225. doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000024668.70143.80
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens S, Petts J, Bulkeley H. 2006. Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment. Environ Plann C. 24:633–643. doi:10.1068/c0606j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pain R, Francis P. 2003. Reflections on participatory research. Area. 35:46–54. doi:10.1111/1475-4762.00109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkins JR, MacKendrick NA. 2007. Assessing community vulnerability: a study of the mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environ Change. 17:460–471. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero-Lankao P, Borbor-Cordova M, Abrutsky R, Günther G, Behrentz E, Dawidowsky L. 2013. ADAPTE: a tale of diverse teams coming together to do issue-driven interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy. 26:29–39. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadza CHD, Oppenheimer M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Smith JB, Suarez A, Yamin F. 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change: climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, editors. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 779–810.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz P. 2003. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Eval Program Plann. 26:249–262. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(03)00029-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soares MB, Gagnon AS, Doherty RM. 2012. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: a review. Int J Clim Change Strat Man. 4:6–35. doi:10.1108/17568691211200191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [SOU] Swedish Government Official Reports. 2007. Sweden facing climate change: threats and opportunities. Stockholm: Edita.
   Google Scholar
• Star SL. 2010. This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci Technol Hum Val. 35:601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star SL, Griesemer JR. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci. 19:387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyaert P, Barzman M, Billaud J-P, Brives H, Hubert B, Ollivier G, Roche B. 2007. The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environ Sci Policy. 10:537–550. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling A. 2007. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Val. 33:262–294. doi:10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundberg M. 2007. Parameterizations as boundary objects on the climate arena. Soc Stud Sci. 37:473–488. doi:10.1177/0306312706075330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teulier R, Hubert B. 2004. The notion of “intermediary concept” contributes to a better understanding of the generative dance between knowledge and knowing. In: Proceedings of the 20th EGOS conference; Jun 30– Jul 3; Ljubljana.
   Google Scholar
• Thurk J, Fine GA. 2003. The problem of tools: technology and the sharing of knowledge. Acta Sociologica. 46:107–117. doi:10.1177/0001699303046002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toderi M, Powell N, Seddaiu G, Roggero PP, Gibbon D. 2007. Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution. Environ Sci Policy. 10:551–563. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Buuren A, Edelenbos J. 2004. Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy. 31:289–299. doi:10.3152/147154304781779967
   Google Scholar
• Welp M, de la Vega-Leinert A, Stoll-Kleemann S, Jaeger CC. 2006. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Global Environ Change. 16:170–181. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar