Collaboration has the potential to aid the balancing of values and goals that belong to different, sometimes competing, policy fields, such as energy, climate adaptation and nature conservation-a key component of sustainable governance. However, we need to know more of how collaboration can function as integrating (and integrated) components of governance systems. Three regulated Swedish rivers are used here as examples to explore factors that influence this function. The following factors are identified: transparency of value trade-offs, understanding of collaboration and governance, interplay between public sectors, integrating funding mechanisms, clarity of mandate, strategic use of networks and consistency of the governance system. As a consequence of the poor management of these factors in our case, water quality and ecology values are not integrated in strategic decision making, e.g., regarding hydropower, urban development or climate adaptation. Instead, they are considered add-ons, or "decorations". The Swedish case illustrates the meaning of the factors and their great importance for achieving sustainable governance.

In environmental participatory modeling (PM), both computer and non-computer-based modeling techniques are used to aid participatory problem description, solution, and decision-making actions in environmental contexts. Although many PM case studies have been published, few efforts have sought to systematically describe and understand dominant PM processes or establish best practices for PM. As a first step, we have reviewed a random sample of environmental PM case study articles (n = 60) using a novel PM process evaluation instrument. We found that significant work likely remains for PM to fully support participatory and integrated planning processes. While PM reports systematically address knowledge integration and learning, they often neglect the facilitation of a multi-value perspective within a democratic process, and the integration across organizations within a governance system. If not reported, we suspect these aspects are also neglected in practice. We conclude with key research and practice issues for improving PM as an approach for real-world participatory planning and governance.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.