Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 26) Show all publications
Hedelin, B. (2019). Complexity is no excuse: Introduction of a research model for turning sustainable development from theory into practice. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 733-749
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Complexity is no excuse: Introduction of a research model for turning sustainable development from theory into practice
2019 (English)In: Sustainability Science, ISSN 1862-4065, E-ISSN 1862-4057, Vol. 14, no 3, p. 733-749Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

An overarching research model is introduced here that can support research for turning sustainable development (SD) from theory into practice. The model describes how existing and future theories, and empirical knowledge related to SD can be utilised to establish explicit linkages—steps—between fundamental SD principles and specific studied practices. The research model is intended to support planning, design and communication of a range of research endeavours such as individual studies, larger projects and research programmes. It internalises a number of insights from the current stock of SD literature such as explicitly linking local solutions to general SD principles, the need to embrace complexity and to use theory, the need for interdisciplinarity, and acknowledging SD as both substance and process. The model and its utilisation are explained and illustrated here by reference to a research example from river basin planning. The model is a critical and constructive attempt to establish structure and strategy in relation to the overwhelming complexity of the sustainability challenge—a challenge which urgently calls for reflective and effective research approaches.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Tokyo, 2019
Keywords
Implementation, Operationalisation, Research design, Research model, Sustainability science, Sustainable development
National Category
Environmental Sciences related to Agriculture and Land-use
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-70346 (URN)10.1007/s11625-018-0635-5 (DOI)000466962000013 ()2-s2.0-85055535543 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-11-29 Created: 2018-11-29 Last updated: 2019-06-13Bibliographically approved
Graversgaard, M., Hedelin, B., Smith, L., Gertz, F., Højberg, A. L., Langford, J., . . . Refsgaard, J. C. (2018). Opportunities and barriers for water co-governance: A critical analysis of seven cases of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America. Sustainability, 10(5), Article ID 1634.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Opportunities and barriers for water co-governance: A critical analysis of seven cases of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, E-ISSN 2071-1050, Vol. 10, no 5, article id 1634Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
MDPI, 2018
Keywords
Collaborative governance, Decentralized decision-making, Non-point source pollution, Nutrient management, Water governance
National Category
Water Treatment Globalisation Studies Water Engineering
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-67495 (URN)10.3390/su10051634 (DOI)000435587100330 ()2-s2.0-85047145753 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-06-07 Created: 2018-06-07 Last updated: 2019-03-20Bibliographically approved
Gray, S., Voinov, A., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., BenDor, T., Bommel, P., . . . Zellner, M. (2018). Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling. Ecological Applications, 28(1), 46-61
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Ecological Applications, ISSN 1051-0761, E-ISSN 1939-5582, Vol. 28, no 1, p. 46-61Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human-environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2018
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-67074 (URN)000429004700004 ()28922513 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2018-04-19 Created: 2018-04-19 Last updated: 2018-06-25Bibliographically approved
Jordan, R., Gray, S., Zellner, M., Glynn, P. D., Voinov, A., Hedelin, B., . . . Prell, C. (2018). Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community. Earth's Future, 6(8), 1046-1057
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Earth's Future, ISSN 1384-5160, E-ISSN 2328-4277, Vol. 6, no 8, p. 1046-1057Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2018
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-69407 (URN)10.1029/2018EF000841 (DOI)000444074000001 ()
Available from: 2018-09-27 Created: 2018-09-27 Last updated: 2018-10-18Bibliographically approved
Hedelin, B., Evers, M., Alkan-Olsson, J. & Jonsson, A. (2017). Participatory modelling for sustainable development: Key issues derived from five cases of natural resource and disaster risk management. Environmental Science and Policy, 76, 185-196
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Participatory modelling for sustainable development: Key issues derived from five cases of natural resource and disaster risk management
2017 (English)In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 76, p. 185-196Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Stakeholder participation is considered a key principle for sustainable development in the context of natural resource and disaster risk management. Participatory modelling (PM) is an interactive and iterative process in which stakeholder involvement is supported by modelling and communication tools. Planning and decision making for sustainable development (SD)integrate three substantive dimensions social, ecological and economic. The procedural dimension of SD, however, is equally important, and here we see great potential for PM. In this study, we evaluate five PM research projects against criteria for the procedural dimension of SD. This provides a basis for identifying key issues and needs for further research into PM for SD. While the cases show great potential, especially for supporting knowledge integration, learning and transparent handling of values and perspectives, they indicate a particular need to develop PM in respect of organizational integration. This issue is closely connected to the possibility of effectively implementing PM in practice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2017
Keywords
Participatory modelling, sustainable development, procedure, research need, natural resources management, disaster risk management
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-63997 (URN)10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.001 (DOI)000407981300021 ()
Available from: 2017-09-27 Created: 2017-09-27 Last updated: 2018-08-15Bibliographically approved
Hedelin, B. (2017). The EU floods directive in Sweden: Opportunities for integrated and participatory flood risk planning. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10(2), 226-237
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The EU floods directive in Sweden: Opportunities for integrated and participatory flood risk planning
2017 (English)In: Journal of Flood Risk Management, ISSN 1753-318X, E-ISSN 1753-318X, Vol. 10, no 2, p. 226-237Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study analyses the implementation of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden. The question here centres on the possibilities promoted by the directive for sustainable flood risk management, with an emphasis on integrated and participatory management forms. Key persons are interviewed, using a set of criteria for sustainable river basin management as a theoretical framework. The study shows that work in this area is guided by a wide array of values, and that the involved experts provide a broad knowledge basis for this work. The need for better coordination between authorities, pieces of legislation and policy fields however remains critical while the merits of participatory planning approaches are not yet sufficiently utilised. One of the primary tasks here is to develop a shared understanding of the formal context and roles of the process while also developing forms for effective collaboration both within the new administration and between the administration and other key actors, most importantly the municipalities. The case of Sweden can provide useful insights into this process for other member states.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017
Keywords
EU Floods Directive, flood risk management plan, implementation, integrated, participatory, sustainable development, Sweden
National Category
Climate Research
Research subject
Environmental Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-42429 (URN)10.1111/jfr3.12162 (DOI)000400989300010 ()2-s2.0-84927762690 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2016-05-27 Created: 2016-05-23 Last updated: 2019-07-09Bibliographically approved
Hedelin, B. (2017). The EU Floods Directive trickling down: Tracing the ideas of integrated and participatory flood risk management in Sweden. Water Policy, 19(2), 286-303
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The EU Floods Directive trickling down: Tracing the ideas of integrated and participatory flood risk management in Sweden
2017 (English)In: Water Policy, ISSN 1366-7017, E-ISSN 1996-9759, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 286-303Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study examines how the EU Floods Directive - an extensive and innovative legislative instrument for integrated and participatory flood risk planning in all EU member states - influences local flood risk management in one member state, Sweden. The study identifies that: many municipalities have received new knowledge; crosssectoral organisational structures for water and flood risk issues at the local level are being formed or strengthened; and the flood risk issue has been elevated up the political agenda. There are also however clear signs that a number of other fundamental issues are not being adequately addressed in the complex institutional setting that results from the directive's implementation. These issues are undoubtedly obstructing the development of a more integrated and participatory flood risk management system. Of key importance here are questions relating to how roles and mandates are communicated and adopted, the lack of coordination between the Floods Directive and the Water Framework Directive, and the inadequate involvement of the municipal level and other stakeholders. Practical recommendations on how to redirect development towards more positive outcomes in these areas are thus formulated.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: IWA Publishing, 2017
National Category
Public Administration Studies Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Climate Research
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-63953 (URN)10.2166/wp.2016.092 (DOI)000401815400006 ()
Available from: 2017-09-25 Created: 2017-09-25 Last updated: 2019-06-03Bibliographically approved
Norén, V., Hedelin, B. & Bishop, K. (2016). Drinking water risk assessment in practice: the case of Swedish drinking water producers at risk from floods. Environment Systems and Decisions, 36(3), 239-252
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Drinking water risk assessment in practice: the case of Swedish drinking water producers at risk from floods
2016 (English)In: Environment Systems and Decisions, ISSN 2194-5403, E-ISSN 2194-5411, Vol. 36, no 3, p. 239-252Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

To achieve a safe and reliable drinking water supply, water producers need to manage a large range of risks regarding both water quality and quantity. A risk management approach where risks are systematically identified and handled in a preventive manner is promoted by the World Health Organization and supported by researchers and drinking water experts worldwide. Risk assessment is an important part of such a management approach, and a variety of tools for risk assessment are described in the literature. There is, however, little knowledge of how drinking water risk assessment is performed in practice, including which tools that are actually used. This study investigates the use of risk assessment tools, and the approach to risk management, on a local level in the Swedish water sector. It is based on interviews with key persons from a targeted selection of water producers. We find that the application of tools as well as the approach to risk assessment and management differs considerably between the water producers. The tools most frequently used are mainly the ones promoted or required by Swedish national organizations. Although many of the water producers have done some kind of risk assessment, most have not implemented a risk management approach. Furthermore, their knowledge of the concepts of risk and risk management is often limited. The largest challenge identified is to prioritize risk assessment, so that it is actually performed and then used as a basis for managing risk in a systematic way.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2016
Keywords
Drinking water, Risk assessment in practice, Tools and methods, Risk management, Interview study, Sweden, Swedish water producers
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-63998 (URN)10.1007/s10669-016-9588-3 (DOI)
Available from: 2017-09-27 Created: 2017-09-27 Last updated: 2019-06-03Bibliographically approved
Noren, V., Hedelin, B., Nyberg, L. & Bishop, K. (2016). Flood risk assessment: Practices in flood prone Swedish municipalities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 206-217
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Flood risk assessment: Practices in flood prone Swedish municipalities
2016 (English)In: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, E-ISSN 2212-4209, Vol. 18, p. 206-217Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Risk assessments are important to ensure efficient and effective flood risk management. Methods and strategies for flood risk assessment are described in the literature, but less is known about how assessments are actually performed. We have studied local flood risk assessments in Sweden by interviewing flood risk managers in municipalities and analyzing documentation of flood risk assessment efforts. There is a large variation between municipalities in how flood risk assessment has been done. The efforts made in association with the EU Floods Directive together with a Government Commission about a flood in Lake Malaren are the most advanced assessments. Only a few of the municipalities have done comparable assessments. Generally, however, there is a lack of experience and theoretical knowledge about concepts and methods of flood risk assessment in the municipalities. In the assessments studied, the flood itself had been rather well defined in hazard maps. The consequences of a flood had been studied in the larger projects but only by half of the municipalities. It is mainly direct, tangible consequences that have been included. It is mainly the exposure of assets that has been investigated while little attention has been paid to vulnerability. To improve flood risk assessment in Sweden there is a need for knowledge and resources in the municipalities. Prioritization and motivation are needed to actually perform the assessments. National guidelines for may be helpful to guide municipalities in this work and to have more uniform risk assessment. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala Univ, Dept Earth Sci, Villavagen, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden. [Noren, Viveca; Bishop, Kevin] Uppsala Univ, Dept Earth Sci, Villavagen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden. [Noren, Viveca; Nyberg, Lars; Bishop, Kevin] Uppsala Univ, Ctr Nat Disaster Sci, Villavagen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden. [Hedelin, Beatrice; Nyberg, Lars] Karlstad Univ, Dept Environm & Life Sci, Ctr Climate & Safety, SE-65188 Karlstad, Sweden. [Bishop, Kevin] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Aquat Sci & Assessment, POB 7050, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden.: , 2016
Keywords
Flood risk assessment, Practice, Swedish municipalities, Interview study
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-47471 (URN)10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.003 (DOI)000384837500021 ()
Available from: 2016-12-07 Created: 2016-12-07 Last updated: 2019-09-19Bibliographically approved
Hedelin, B. (2016). The Sustainable Procedure Framework for Disaster Risk Management: Illustrated by the Case of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(2), 151-162
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Sustainable Procedure Framework for Disaster Risk Management: Illustrated by the Case of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden
2016 (English)In: International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, ISSN 2095-0055, Vol. 7, no 2, p. 151-162Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

How can the concrete meaning of the ambiguous and theoretical concept of sustainable development (SD) be defined and implemented, without losing sight of its fundamental principles? This study introduces a theoretical framework that supports studies of SD implementation in the context of strategic disaster risk management, by defining what SD implies with regard to planning procedures. The framework is based on the procedural SD principles of participation and integration. It was originally developed for, and has shown great value in, the field of water resource management. In-depth interviews with senior risk management researchers indicate that the framework is also applicable to and valuable for disaster risk management studies. To illustrate the application of the framework, a study of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden is summarized with the framework as the basis for the analysis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2016
Keywords
Disaster risk management, EU Floods Directive, Planning, Sustainable development, Sustainable Procedure Framework, Sweden
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Risk and Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-44654 (URN)10.1007/s13753-016-0093-6 (DOI)000379163200004 ()
Available from: 2016-08-11 Created: 2016-08-11 Last updated: 2019-07-09Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-0301-3299

Search in DiVA

Show all publications