| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergstrand, Anna, 1974-, et al.
(author)
-
Varför är det så snårigt? : Begrepp relaterade till samverkansmeritering
- 2021
-
Reports (pop. science, debate, etc.)abstract
- Detta dokument är framtaget som en intern rapport inom MerSam – Meritvärde av samverkansskicklighet, varsprojekttid löpt under 2017 – 2020. MerSam är ett av Vinnovas 17 finansierade K3-projekt. Rapporten utgör ensammanställning av insamlad information från dokument, dialoger, workshoppar, intervjuer och enkäter.Rapporten visar på användning av begrepp och tolkning av begrepp. Syftet är att beskriva en nulägesbild ochutifrån den samla och lyfta fram vilka begrepp som förslagsvis kan användas i projektets slutleveranser. Slutsatser och rekommendationer har tagits fram med delaktighet av hela MerSam projektet och hardiskuterats på projektmöten, projektworkshopar den 17-18 juni 2020 samt den 15 oktober 2020.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hassler, Björn, 1964-, et al.
(author)
-
Collective action and agency in Baltic Sea marine spatial planning: Transnational policy coordination in the promotion of regional coherence
- 2018
-
In: Marine Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-597X .- 1872-9460. ; 92, s. 138-147
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Despite the increasing attention given to marine spatial planning and the widely acknowledged need for transnational policy coordination, regional coherence has not yet improved a great deal in the Baltic Sea region. Therefore, the main objectives in this article are: (a) to map existing governance structures at all levels that influence how domestic marine spatial planning policy strategies are formed, (b) to identify specific challenges to improved regional cooperation and coordination, and (c) to discuss possible remedies. Based on data from in-depth case studies carried out in the BONUS BALTSPACE research project, it is shown that, despite the shared goal of sustainability and efficient resource use in relevant EU Directives, action plans and other policy instruments, domestic plans are emerging in diverse ways, mainly reflecting varying domestic administrative structures, sectoral interests, political prioritisations, and handling of potentially conflicting policy objectives. A fruitful distinction can be made between, on the one hand, regulatory institutions and structures above the state level where decision-making mechanisms are typically grounded in consensual regimes and, on the other hand, bilateral, issue-specific collaboration, typically between adjacent countries. It is argued that, to improve overall marine spatial planning governance, these two governance components need to be brought together to improve consistency between regional alignment and to enhance opportunities for countries to collaborate at lower levels. Issue-specific transnational working groups or workshops can be one way to identify and act upon such potential synergies. © 2018 The Authors
|
|
| 5. |
- Saunders, Fred P., et al.
(author)
-
Knowledge for environmental governance: probing science–policy theory in the cases of eutrophication and fisheries in the Baltic Sea
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. - : Routledge. - 1523-908X .- 1522-7200. ; 19:6, s. 769-782
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- How science and policy interact has been a major research focus in the International Relations (IR) tradition, using the epistemic community (EC) concept, as well as in the alternative perspective of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Should science be autonomous and as apolitical as possible in order to ‘speak truth to power’, as suggested by EC or should the inevitable entanglement of science and politics be accepted and embraced so as to make advice more conducive to negotiating the explicit travails of political decision-making as suggested by STS? With this point of departure, we compare similarities and differences between science–policy interactions in the issue areas of eutrophication and fisheries management of the Baltic Sea. To examine how knowledge is mobilised, the concepts of ‘uncertainty’ and ‘coherence’ are developed, drawing on both EC and STS thinking. We then reflect on the explanatory value of these approaches in both cases and discuss how a separation of science and policy-making in the pursuit of achieving scientific consensus leads to ineffectual policies. Drawing on STS thinking, we urge for a re-conceptualisation of coherence in order to accommodate a more reflexive practice of science–policy interactions.
|
|
| 6. |
-
Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea.
- 2016
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This edited volume presents a comprehensive and coherent interdisciplinary analysis of challenges and possibilities for sustainable governance of the Baltic Sea ecosystem by combining knowledge and approaches from natural and social sciences. Focusing on the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) and associated multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor challenges, the book provides up-to-date descriptions and analyses of environmental governance structures and processes at the macro-regional Baltic Sea level. Organised in two parts, Part 1 presents in-depth case studies of environmental governance practices and challenges linked to five key environmental problems - eutrophication, chemical pollution, overfishing, oil discharges and invasive species. Part 2 analyses and compares governance challenges and opportunities across the five case studies, focusing on governance structures and EAM implementation, knowledge integration and science support, as well as stakeholder communication and participation. Based on these cross-case comparisons, this book also draws a set of general conclusions on possible ways of improving the governance of the Baltic Sea by promoting what are identified as vital functions of environmental governance: coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gawell, Malin, 1964-, et al.
(author)
-
Innovationslabb för social inkludering : Erfarenheter från Vinnova-finansierade projekt
- 2020. - 1
-
Book (other academic/artistic)abstract
- I boken presenteras en analys av erfarenheterna från tio projekt som finansieras inom Vinnovas utlysning ”Social innovation mot segregation – finansiering av innovationslabb för ökad inkludering” under perioden 2017-2019. Analysen bygger på projektledarnas erfarenheter av att leda och organisera innovationslabben, som dokumenterats genom workshops, enkät och projektmaterial. Rapporten är framtagen inom ramen för det kunskapsstöd som letts av Ideell Arena i samarbete med Södertörns högskola och Luleå tekniska universitet.
|
|
| 8. |
- Gilek, Michael, 1965-, et al.
(author)
-
Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea : Identifying Key Challenges, Research Topics and Analytical Approaches
- 2016. - 1
-
In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea. - Cham : Springer. - 9783319270050 - 9783319270067 - 9783319800561 ; , s. 1-17
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Baltic Sea ecosystem is subject to a wide array of societal pressures and associated environmental risks (e.g. eutrophication, oil discharges, chemical pollution, overfishing and invasive alien species). Despite several years of substantial efforts by state and non-state actors, it is still highly unlikely that the regionally agreed environmental objectives of reaching “good environmental status” by 2021 in the HELCOM BSAP (Baltic Sea Action Plan) and by 2020 in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) will be met. This chapter identifies key research topics, as well as presents analytical perspectives for analysing the gap between knowledge and action in Baltic Sea environmental governance. It does so by outlining important trends and key challenges associated with Baltic Sea environmental governance, as well as by summarising the scope and results of individual chapters of this interdisciplinary volume. The analysis reveals the development of increasingly complex governance arrangements and the ongoing implementation of the holistic Ecosystem Approach to Management, as two general trends that together contribute to three key challenges associated with (1) regional and cross - sectoral coordination and collaboration, (2) coping with complexity and uncertainty in science-policy interactions and (3) developing communication and knowledge sharing among stakeholder groups. Furthermore, to facilitate analysis of environmental governance opportunities and obstacles both within and across specific environmental issues, this chapter reviews the scientific literature to pinpoint key research issues and questions linked to the identified governance challenges.
|
|
| 9. |
- Linke, Sebastian, 1974, et al.
(author)
-
Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance : Towards Regional Cooperation and Management of Uncertainty?
- 2016. - 1
-
In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea. - Cham : Springer. - 9783319270050 - 9783319270067 - 9783319800561 ; , s. 173-203
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This chapter investigates and compares the interactions between science and policy (risk assessments and risk management) in five cases of environmental governance of the Baltic Sea: eutrophication, fisheries, invasive alien species, chemical pollution and oil discharges. An efficient interplay between science and policy is important for successful environmental governance, which applies particularly to the Baltic Sea where all five risks pose serious threats to environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. We use science-policy theory and an analytical framework based on a categorisation of relevant management responses linked to different states of incomplete knowledge (risk, uncertainty, ambiguity, ignorance) to investigate two main characteristics of science-policy interfaces: (1) organisational structures and (2) procedural aspects of managing scientific uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements. The analyses reveal differences and similarities in institutional and organisational designs of the respective assessment-management interactions, as well as in terms of how scientific uncertainties, stakeholder disagreements and socio-political ambiguities are addressed. All the five science-policy interfaces expose science-based management approaches that commonly are not able to cope sufficiently well with the complexities, uncertainties and ambiguities at hand. Based on our cross-case analyses, we conclude by recommending five key aspects that need to be addressed to improve science-policy interactions in Baltic Sea environmental governance: (1) more adaptive organisational structures in terms of time, context and place dependency, (2) increased knowledge integrations, (3) a more careful consideration of stakeholder participation and deliberation, (4) better management of uncertainty and disagreements and (5) increased transparency and reflection in the communication of science-policy processes.
|
|
| 10. |
- Mikael, Karlsson, et al.
(author)
-
Mind the gap : Coping with delay in environmental governance
- 2019
-
In: Ambio. - : Springer Netherlands. - 0044-7447 .- 1654-7209.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Gaps between public policy goals and the state of the environment are often significant. However, while goal failures in environmental governance are studied in a number of disciplines, the knowledge on the various causes behind delayed goal achievement is still incomplete. In this article we propose a new framework for analysis of delay mechanisms in science and policy, with the intention to provide a complementary lens for describing, analysing and counteracting delay in environmental governance. The framework is based on case-study findings from recent research focusing on goal-failures in policies for climate change, hazardous chemicals, biodiversity loss and eutrophication. It is also related to previous research on science and policy processes and their interactions. We exemplify the framework with two delay mechanisms that we consider particularly important to highlight—denial of science and decision thresholds. We call for further research in the field, for development of the framework, and not least for increased attention to delay mechanisms in environmental policy review and development on national as well as international levels.
|
|
