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

References

• Allan C. 2012. Rethinking the ‘project’: bridging the polarized discourses in IWRM. J Environ Policy Plann. 14(3):231–241. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.702012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso-Yanez G, House-Peters L, Garcia-Cartagena M, Bonelli S, Lorenzo-Arana I, Ohira M. 2019. Mobilizing transdisciplinary collaborations: collective reflections on decentering academia in knowledge production. Global Sustain. 2. doi:10.1017/sus.2019.2.
   Google Scholar
• Angelstam P, Andersson K, Annerstedt M, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Garrido P, Grahn P, Jönsson KI, Pedersen S, Schlyter P, et al. 2013. Solving problems in social–ecological systems: definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. AMBIO. 42(2):254–265. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelstam P, Manton M, Green M, Jonsson B-G, Mikusiński G, Svensson J, Maria Sabatini F. 2020. Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: a call for adaptive landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 202:103838. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apetrei CI, Caniglia G, von Wehrden H, Lang DJ. 2021. Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science. Glob Environ Change. 68:102222. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martin-Lopez B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S, Hendriks CMA, Termansen M, García- Llorente M, Primmer E, et al. 2018. (Dis) integrated valuation – assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosyst Serv. 29:529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennich T, Maneas G, Maniatakou S, Piemontese L, Schaffer C, Schellens M, Österlin C. 2020. Transdisciplinary research for sustainability: scoping for project potential. Int Soc Sci J. doi:10.1111/issj.12245.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein S, Cashore B. 2012. Complex global governance and domestic policies: four pathways of influence. Int Aff (Royal Inst Int Aff 1944-). 88(3):585–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL. 2007. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ. 60(4):726–742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014.
   Web of Science ®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
• Boeraeve F, Dufrene M, De Vreese R, Jacobs S, Pipart N, Turkelboom F, Verheyden W, Dendoncker N. 2018. Participatory identification and selection of ecosystem services: building on field experiences. Ecol Soc. 23(2). doi:10.5751/ES-10087-230227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures. 38(7):723–739. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002.
   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
• Bright RM, Davin E, O’Halloran T, Pongratz J, Zhao K, Cescatti A. 2017. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat Clim Change. 7(4):296–302. doi:10.1038/nclimate3250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunet L, Tuomisaari J, Lavorel S, Crouzat E, Bierry A, Peltola T, Arpin I. 2018. Actionable knowledge for land use planning: making ecosystem services operational. Land Use Policy. 72:27–34. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, Roman LA. 2016. Knowledge co-production at the research–practice interface: embedded case studies from urban forestry. Environ Manage. 57(6):1262–1280. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0680-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, et al. 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain. 4(2):93–100. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 100(14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Klenk NL, Ryan M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Brennan R, Charli-Joseph L, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, et al. 2022. Co-Productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob Environ Change. 72:102422. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422.
   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
• Clark WC, Harley AG. 2020. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 45(1):331–386. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621.
   Google Scholar
• Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E. 2016b. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Nat Acad Sci. 113(17):4615–4622. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC. 2016a. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 113(17):4570–4578. doi:10.1073/pnas.1601266113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman K, Stern MJ. 2018. Exploring the functions of different forms of trust in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Res. 31(1):21–38. doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defila R, Di Giulio A. 2015. Integrating knowledge: challenges raised by the “inventory of synthesis. Futures. 65:123–135. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.013.
   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
• Ds 2012:23. 2012. Swedish environmental goals—specifications of the environmental quality objectives and a first set of interim targets (in Swedish). Stockholm: Government Offices, Department of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Riechers M. 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1(1):115–120. doi:10.1002/pan3.13.
   Google Scholar
• Garnett ST, Crowley GM, Hunter-Xenie H, Kozanayi W, Sithole B, Palmer C, Southgate R, Zander KK. 2009. Transformative knowledge transfer through empowering and paying community researchers. Biotropica. 41(5):571–577. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00558.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauthier S, Bernier P, Kuuluvainen T, Shvidenko AZ, Schepaschenko DG. 2015. Boreal forest health and global change. Science. 349(6250):819–822. doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ. 86:235–245. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Bauhus J, Asbeck T, Augustynczik ALD, Basile M, Frey J, Gutzat F, Hanewinkel M, Helbach J, Jonker M, et al. 2020. Retention as an integrated biodiversity conservation approach for continuous-cover forestry in Europe. AMBIO. 49(1):85–97. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01190-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen V, Mäkinen-Rostedt K, Horcea-Milcu A, D’Amato D, Jämsä J, Soini K. 2022. Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: towards an integrative and transformative use of co-concepts. Sustain Dev. 30(2):309–325. doi:10.1002/sd.2276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann S, Thompson Klein J, Pohl C. 2019. Linking transdisciplinary research projects with science and practice at large: introducing insights from knowledge utilization. Environ Sci Policy. 102:36–42. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leventon J, Lang DJ. 2022. Making transdisciplinarity happen: phase 0, or before the beginning. Environ Sci Policy. 136:187–197. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurlbert M, Gupta J. 2015. The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environ Sci Policy. 50:100–113. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagannathan K, Arnott JC, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Mach KJ, Moss RH, Sjostrom KD. 2020. Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and possibility of co-production. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 42:22–29. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannessen Å, Hahn T. 2013. Social learning towards a more adaptive paradigm? Reducing flood risk in Kristianstad municipality, Sweden. Glob Environ Change. 23(1):372–381. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmit D, Pülzl H, Secco L, Sergent A, Wallin I. 2018. Orchestration in political processes: involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making. Forest Policy Econ. 89:4–15. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kritzberg ES, Hasselquist EM, Škerlep M, Löfgren S, Olsson O, Stadmark J, Valinia S, Hansson L-A, Laudon H. 2020. Browning of freshwaters: consequences to ecosystem services, underlying drivers, and potential mitigation measures. AMBIO. 49(2):375–390. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01227-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam DPM, Freund ME, Kny J, Marg O, Mbah M, Theiler L, Bergmann M, Brohmann B, Lang DJ, Schäfer M. 2021. Transdisciplinary research: towards an integrative perspective. GAIA - Ecol Persp Sci Soc. 30(4):243–249. doi:10.14512/gaia.30.4.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 7(1):25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
• Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V. 2012. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat Clim Chang. 2(11):789–794. doi:10.1038/nclimate1614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindstad BH. 2018. ‘What’s in it for me?’ — contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve. Forest Policy Econ. 89:80–86. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmborg K, Enfors-Kautsky E, Queiroz C, Norström A, Schultz L. 2021. Operationalizing ecosystem service bundles for strategic sustainability planning: a participatory approach. AMBIO. 50(2):314–331. doi:10.1007/s13280-020-01378-w.
   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
• Mascarenhas A, Langemeyer J, Haase D, Borgström S, Andersson E. 2021. Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research through a novel analytical approach. Ecol Soc. 26(4). doi:10.5751/ES-12631-260419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 5(3):420–431. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie E, Posner S, Tillmann P, Bernhardt JR, Howard K, Rosenthal A. 2014. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 32(2):320–340. doi:10.1068/c12292j.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, Pulgar-Vidal M, et al. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv. 144(3):966–972. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moallemi EA, de Haan FJ, Hadjikakou M, Khatami S, Malekpour S, Smajgl A, Smith MS, Voinov A, Bandari R, Lamichhane P, et al. 2021. Evaluating participatory modeling methods for co-creating pathways to sustainability. Earth’s Future. 9(3):e2020EF001843. doi:10.1029/2020EF001843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee N, Zabala A, Huge J, Nyumba TO, Adem Esmail B, Sutherland WJ. 2018. Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making. Meth Ecol Evol. 9(1):54–63. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newig J, Jahn S, Lang DJ, Kahle J, Bergmann M. 2019. Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects. Environ Sci Policy. 101:147–155. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen BS, Nielsen KA. 2016. Critical utopian action research: the potentials of action research in the democratisation of society. Page Commons, Sustainability, Democratization. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain. 3(3):182–190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlack C, Breu T, Giger M, Harari N, Herweg K, Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Messerli P, Moser S, Ott C, Providoli I, et al. 2019. Theories of change in sustainability science: understanding how change happens. GAIA - Ecol Persp Sci Soc. 28(2):106–111. doi:10.14512/gaia.28.2.8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw T, Bohensky E, Butler J, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc. 20(4). doi:10.5751/ES-07985-200432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Drimie S, Dyer M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, et al. 2020. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the global South. Sustain Sci. 15(1):161–178. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira L, Karpouzoglou T, Frantzeskaki N, Olsson P. 2018. Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 23(4). doi:10.5751/ES-10607-230432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira L, Kuiper JJ, Selomane O, Aguiar APD, Asrar GR, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Calvin K, Hedden S, Hsu A, et al. 2021. Advancing a toolkit of diverse futures approaches for global environmental assessments. Ecosyst People. 17(1):191–204. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1901783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner SM, McKenzie E, Ricketts TH. 2016. Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 113(7):1760–1765. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502452113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pülzl H, Giurca A, Kleinschmit D, Arts B, Mustalahti I, Sergent A, Secco L, Pettenella D, Brukas V. 2017. The role of forests in bioeconomy strategies at the domestic and EU level; p. 36–51.
   Google Scholar
• Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli Del Ceno J, et al. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecology. 26(S1):S7–S17. doi:10.1111/rec.12541.
   Google Scholar
• Rich RF. 1997. Measuring knowledge utilization: processes and outcomes. Knowl Policy. 10(3):11–24. doi:10.1007/BF02912504.
   Google Scholar
• Sandström C, Lindkvist A, Öhman K, Nordström E-M. 2011. Governing Competing Demands for Forest Resources in Sweden. Forests. 2(1):218–242. doi:10.3390/f2010218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sardar Z. 2010. The Namesake: futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—what’s in a name? Futures. 42(3):177–184. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauppenlehner-Kloyber E, Penker M. 2015. Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: how to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development? Futures. 65:57–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM. 2021a. Towards a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society and self. Ecosyst People. 17(1):292–305. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1931452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellberg M, Quinlan A, Preiser R, Malmborg K, Peterson G. 2021b. Engaging with complexity in resilience practice. Ecol Soc. 26(3). doi:10.5751/ES-12311-260308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SMHI. 2002. Län och huvudavrinningsområden i Sverige. Faktablad nr 10. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Stringer L, Dougill A, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed M. 2006. Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc. 11(2). doi:10.5751/ES-01896-110239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO. 43(5):579–591. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26–27:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomich TP, Chomitz K, Francisco H, Izac A-M-N, Murdiyarso D, Ratner BD, Thomas DE, van Noordwijk M. 2004. Policy analysis and environmental problems at different scales: asking the right questions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 104(1):5–18. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opi Environ Sustain. 42:15–21. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bommel S, Blackmore C, Foster N, de Vries J. 2016. Performing and orchestrating governance learning for systemic transformation in practice for climate change adaptation. Outlook Agric. 45(4):231–237. doi:10.1177/0030727016675692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallin I, Carlsson J, Hansen HP. 2016. Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research. Forest Policy Econ. 73:25–40. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.010.
   Web of Science ®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
• Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O, Renn O. 2011. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environ Plann A: Econ Space. 43(11):2688–2704. doi:10.1068/a44161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N. 2014. Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci. 9(4):483–496. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar