Introduction

To collectively govern and care for multifunctional landscapes while being inclusive of different worldviews, ways of knowing, and value systems requires carefully designed meeting spaces for exchanging different viewpoints and making decisions (König 2018). Structured dialogue series may present a flexible, multi-purpose tool for bringing different perspectives and knowledge holders together, whose contributions to addressing complex challenges might otherwise be overlooked for various reasons (Cornell et al. 2013; Tengö et al. 2014). Such dialogue series can be described as knowledge co-production, defined by Norström et al. (2020) as “[i]terative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future” (p. 183).

Many current studies on knowledge co-production mainly focus on highlighting outcomes, which range from redistributing power among societal actors, capacity-building, changing knowledge systems (Wyborn et al. 2019), embracing pluralism and diversity (Norström et al. 2020), to creating new understandings and taking action (Jagannathan et al. 2020). Although knowledge co-production processes tend to remain embedded in “existing systems, structures, and processes of policy and institutions” (Wyborn et al. 2019, p. 330), jointly created knowledge can translate into policy and institutional changes (such as new formal rules, ways of working, and different practices) (André et al. 2023).

Given their focus on outcomes, Turnhout et al. (2020) point out the lack of evidence on if, how, and why activities within certain interventions trigger changes in studies of knowledge co-production (see also Schneider et al. 2019; Juri et al. 2022). Similarly, Harvey et al. (2019), in their analysis of six co-production efforts, argue that “planning and design decisions are not as purposeful and informed as they could be, particularly about how and why particular co‐productive approaches should lead to anticipated outcomes” (pp. 114–115).

Accordingly, there is a need to investigate when and how dialogue-based processes produce different outcomes. Outcomes need to be traced back to specific designs, activities, and situations, which requires paying more attention to documenting and reporting as well as analyzing knowledge co-production efforts in transparent and interactive ways (Jagannathan et al. 2020; Figus et al. 2022).

With this paper, we present an account of a knowledge co-production process – a workshop series centered around water governance on Öland, Sweden, which we designed to support the mobilization, articulation, and connection of different knowledges relevant for nurturing collective action. We use systems, target, and operational knowledge to conceptualize and frame problems emerging within complex social-ecological systems (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007; Schneider 2011). This conceptualization is the starting point that informs both the design and analysis of a targeted knowledge co-production process and its rigorous documentation and evaluation relative to the intended outcomes. Based on workshop outputs from different activities, we investigated (1) how the workshop series design supported the mobilization, articulation, and connection of actors' knowledge, (2) how actors jointly articulated systems, target, and operational knowledge, and (3) the emergence of a shared understanding of the issues and pathways forward.

Theoretical background

Studies on transformation and different types of co-production provide detailed guidelines for the different steps in setting up transdisciplinary research projects. One line of research points to the potential of using systems, target, and operational knowledge to structure co-production processes (e.g., Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007; Renn 2021). Others stress the need for sequential phases and different activities, which build on each other in complementary ways and enable the emergence of shared understandings of problems and solutions (e.g., Jackson 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023; Reid et al. 2021; Utter et al. 2021; Yua et al. 2022). Place-based encounters and methods can reinforce learning and support more relational ways of understanding values and meanings different actors connect to a place or a landscape (Bergeron et al. 2014). We see an opportunity in combining these insights and focus on how the three knowledges can inform the design of activities and the effects of different design features on outcomes of dialogue-based processes. We further draw on knowledge co-production studies in sustainability science and related fields, in particular place-based initiatives, to further ground our approach to dialogue design and fostering collective action.

Systems, target, and operational knowledge

Sustainability scientists and systems thinkers (Partelow and Winkler 2016) as well as educational researchers (Jensen 2002; Burt and van der Heijden 2008; Wals and Lenglet 2016) position the three knowledges as complementary and important for implementing novel solutions to address challenges related to a changing climate. Schneider et al. (2019) argue that promoting systems, target, and operational knowledge supports more equitable and informed decision-making and fosters social learning for collective action-taking.

Systems knowledge presents the descriptive and explanatory knowledge about the problem status, its causes, and consequences (Schneider et al. 2019). Rölfer et al. (2022) add that systems knowledge also refers to system scales and boundaries, while shining a light on key functions of social-ecological systems. Other studies highlight systems knowledge as taking the specific problem’s context into consideration (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007; Renn 2021). In a project on transforming smallholder farming into organic agriculture practices in Indonesia, Fritz et al. (2021) present systems knowledge as knowledge about organic farming and environmental consequences of agriculture, the role of different institutions in implementing laws and regulations, and different actors (e.g., civil society groups) with an interest in addressing the problem at hand.

Target knowledge includes actors’ rationales for change, desired goals, and improved practices (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007). According to Rölfer et al. (2022), target knowledge allows us to explore common visions of a social-ecological resilient place to ultimately steer the trajectory of change. Schneider et al. (2019) and Renn (2021) draw attention to norms and values related to future development and highlight the importance of unpacking actors’ understandings of sustainability. Fritz et al. (2021) present a community-based organic farming system as the shared vision of participating actors and outline their goals, such as self-sufficiency, building a sense of community, and ensuring profitability.

Operational knowledge acts as an umbrella term for knowledge about different means of taking action to transform current practices and how to move towards desired outcomes (Schneider et al. 2019; Renn 2021; Jacobi et al. 2022). Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2007) separate between technical, social, legal, cultural, and other means of acting, which set out to replace existing practices with desired ones. With a focus on social means, Rölfer et al. (2022) call for identifying the abilities of actors to bring about change through exercising their individual and collective agencies. On a similar note, Germer et al. (2009) focus on the role of social institutions in fostering change-making, since co-developed governance strategies need to “consider how networks of organizations, systems or communities can cooperate to reform […] institutions with a view to long-term goals” (Van Assche et al. 2021, p. 2). In their study, Fritz et al. (2021) include implementing decision-making processes informed by farmers, creating institutional spaces for dialogue and inclusive development, and developing policies for adopting organic agriculture in their interpretation of actors’ operational knowledge.

Process design

Different aspects of the three knowledges may reside with different actors involved and affected by a particular environmental issue. According to Langley et al. (2018), “knowledge has a tendency to stay in silos rather than being made visible and actively blended between groups” (p. 2). Participatory methods and collective, collaborative spaces can break down silos and create bridges between knowledge holders in different roles and positions (Raymond et al. 2010; Moreno-Cely et al. 2021)–i.e., connecting knowledge across actors and actor groups. Since tacit and practical knowledge embedded in experience may not be easily presented and shared with others (Tengö et al. 2017; Malmer et al. 2020), the process design needs to include tools and approaches that enable actors to mobilize, articulate, and connect their different experiences, perspectives, and knowledges to move towards collective understanding and action.

Sequential progress towards collective action

Step-wise, sequential approaches provide deeper, richer understandings (e.g., Hesse-Biber and Johnson 2015; Maxwell 2016), and can help a group move from a joint problem understanding towards exploring the solution space in transdisciplinary research processes (e.g., Jackson 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023; Andersson et al. 2021). In an often-used sequence, participants jointly explore the problem and its context first, think through what a desirable future would look like, and then develop a solution or interventions to move towards this vision (Schneider 2011; Andersson et al. 2021; Borgström et al. 2021; De Luca et al. 2021; Rölfer et al. 2022). In Design Thinking, for example, the process starts with understanding stakeholders’ different needs and actively unpacking the problem and its root causes, ideating and developing prototypes of different interventions, before implementing them in practice (Fischer 2015; Pärli et al. 2022). Engaging with futures thinking, Sharpe et al. (2016) suggest a step-wise, structured dialogue starting with understanding present concerns and questioning business-as-usual, then move on to explore future aspirations and their traces in the present, to land in transitional interventions and innovations to allow desirable change to happen. The approach and associated tools have been further developed to build agency for change among actors (Falardeau et al. 2019). Alongside different guides (e.g., Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2021) and toolboxes (e.g., Studer and Pohl 2023), several empirical studies provide a deeper understanding of how sequential phases and complementary activities in co-production processes lead to achieving certain outcomes. One example is the descriptive case study of a transdisciplinary process on sustainable food systems change in Uruguay, where Juri et al. (2022) present different design features of the three-year stakeholder dialogue. In addition to problem-scoping workshops to articulate the problem and identify local needs and priorities, participants worked with arts-based methods to foster creativity and sense-making and engaged with backcasting activities to think about pathways for change-making. The authors conclude that “this transdisciplinary process was successful in creating new spaces and platforms for facilitating dialogue through the adoption of innovative methods and tools” (p. 17).

Processes of co-production enable moving from individually held perceptions of problems and solutions to shared and collective understandings. To illustrate, Charli-Joseph et al. (2023) present their methodological strategy for hosting a Transformation Laboratory in Xochimilco, Mexico, to address tensions over land tenure and water use between different local groups. They outline a process for moving from deconstructing narratives to jointly creating and enacting new ones. The authors also document changes in meaning-making and individual responsibility as well as the emergence of collective agency.

Conceptualizing knowledge co-production in healthcare, Langley et al. (2018) zoom in on ‘collective making’, which “creates the right ‘conditions’ for knowledge to be mobilized […], helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use […] to collectively create actionable products” (p. 1). To mobilize and connect different knowledge in practice, the authors recommend a range of activities to capture the experiences, explicit, tacit, and embodied knowledge, habits, and ideas of participants. They argue that new insights and learnings are always incorporated into subsequent rounds of making, which leads to the emergence of shared actionable and implementable knowledge.

Place-based encounters

To understand social-ecological issues in situ, place-based encounters can provide a space for conversations and mobilizing tacit, practice-oriented, and local knowledge (Malmer et al. 2018). Recently discussed as go-alongs, walking interviews, or walking workshops, place-based encounters bring different societal actors together while walking and exploring the surroundings (Kusenbach 2003, 2016; Carpiano 2009; Teff-Seker et al. 2022). These encounters can combine elements of storytelling, such as sharing personal stories and practices within the environment (Carpiano 2009; Glowacki-Dudka et al. 2017), with embodied experiences through discovering a place with all the senses (Feinberg 2016). In addition, place-based encounters can nurture mutual understandings (Moran et al. 2020) and reinforce the connections between people and places (O’Neill and Hubbard 2010; Truman and Springgay 2017).

Grounding the design of our knowledge co-production process in recent studies, our workshop series allows for mobilizing, articulating, and connecting knowledges by drawing on a broad knowledge base, participating in place-based encounters, and engaging in change-making to nurture collective action (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the knowledge co-production process on Öland. After a baseline mapping, we invited 17 actors to a workshop series centered around water governance on Öland. During the first workshop, we built a broad knowledge base and mapped Öland as a social-ecological system. The second workshop focused on place-based encounters, landscape stories, and perspectives. During the third workshop, we brainstormed ideas for individual and collective change-making through scenario thinking and strategies development. Throughout the workshop series, we reflected on the design, methods, and facilitation of the co-production process

Full size image

The island of Öland, Sweden, as a case study

Öland, Sweden’s second largest island in the Baltic Sea, experiences the effects of climate change at its doorstep (Rosen and van der Maarel 2000; Ibrahim and Johansson 2022; Foghagen and Alriksson 2023; Takman et al. 2023). The flat landscape causes water to run off quickly and the thin soil cover holds little water storage capacity, which renders the aquifers of the island vulnerable (Foghagen and Alriksson 2023). In addition to low groundwater levels since 2016, Öland has experienced heat waves and droughts over the past 10 years. Increasing variability and scarcity of precipitation has implications for agricultural production and threatens the high biodiversity and recreational values of the island. Historically, large-scale draining took place between the 1880s and 1940s to expand land for agricultural use, which led to a 90% decrease in wetland areas (Ibrahim and Johansson 2022). This intervention was institutionalized through the establishment of so called “drainage enterprises”, entities of all landowners involved that are obliged to drain land. Today, initiatives to retain water, including wetland restoration, require approval from all landowners in the drainage enterprise, notice of the County Administrative Board, and, in some cases, permission from the Land and Environmental Court. These lengthy and demanding bureaucratic processes present obstacles for addressing the water scarcity issue of the island.

Today, the large agricultural sector uses around 63% of the total area of the island for livestock farming, grazing, and crop production. Large numbers of tourists add additional pressure to municipal water supplies (Ibrahim and Johansson 2022; Foghagen and Alriksson 2023).

Over the years, many collaborative projects with local involvement took place in the case area. The process of designating the Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2000 presents one example of recognizing the role of local farmers’ knowledge and experience as a precondition for future successful co-management of the cultural landscape (Stenseke 2009). More recent initiatives in response to water scarcity center around wetland restoration, information campaigns, or wastewater reuse and desalination (Foghagen and Alriksson 2023; Takman et al. 2023).

Methods

The knowledge co-production process

Process initiation and identification of participating actors

To design and facilitate the workshop series on Öland, we conducted a baseline assessment to better understand the local context and the involvement of different actors in addressing the landscape and water management issues of the island. We established contact with three key informants active in Öland’s Water Council (Ölands Vattenråd) and the County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen Kalmar), who have experience working with multi-actor collaborations managing water quality and quantity. In addition to providing input to our initial framing of the outcomes for the co-production process, they also helped us with identifying participating actors. Our intention was to create a potential “coalition for change”—a committed, representative, capable, and legitimate actor group (Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2021). We wanted the participants to (1) represent different actor groups, (2) provide complementary knowledge about landscape and water management, and governance, (3) be interested in and open to dialogue-based processes, collaborative projects, and willing to broaden their horizon, and (4) have links to other stakeholders to bridge different social and organizational contexts. Through snowball sampling, we recruited holders of practical and experience-based knowledge, including farmers, recreational fishers, local heritage and environmental protection organizations, as well as actors knowledgeable in local administration and different policy-making contexts, who together made up the participating group of 17 people.

Despite attempts to get representatives from the local destination management organization to join our workshop series, we had no participants from the tourism sector. Given this sector’s role in both contributing to the local economy and adding pressure to municipal water supplies (Foghagen and Alriksson 2023), we encouraged those actors representing heritage and environmental protection organizations and the authorities to step in with their perspectives and experiences, as they often overlap with those of the tourism sector.

Workshop series design

Using an empirical case study approach (Creswell and Creswell 2018), we designed, facilitated, and evaluated a workshop series on Öland. The three workshops took place between November 2022 and March 2023 (see Fig. 1).

The intention of the first workshop was to connect participating actors’ plural understandings of Öland’s water governance challenges and build a broad knowledge base (Tengö et al. 2014; Miller and Wyborn 2020). The second workshop was designed to engage with the landscape and place-based stories, and we visited three wetland sites with different stories, activities, and practices to discuss collaborations and synergies. The third workshop was intended to raise awareness of and engage actors with questions around governance structures, processes, and agency, all while brainstorming ideas for individual and collective change-making to move towards desirable futures (Sharpe et al. 2016; Falardeau et al. 2019).

We used the three knowledges to design complementary activities and organized these sequentially to complement and build on each other (see Fig. 1, Table 1, and supplementary files 1 and 2).

Table 1 Overview of our operationalization of systems, target, and operational knowledge as well as the different complementary activities, expected outcomes, and generated materials of each workshop (WS)
Full size table
Workshop 1: social-ecological systems mapping

Prior to the first workshop, actors were asked to select photos or objects, which represent their positive and negative associations with water on Öland. In combination with a round of introduction, actors presented their photos and objects, which we assembled in mood boards. Based on the personal stories shared during the ‘Mood boards’ activity, we facilitated a brainstorming exercise to create a rich and multi-dimensional problem formulation. In the next step, we collected initiatives to address the island’s water governance problem. After a sorting exercise, the actors voted and decided on four specific initiatives to engage with further and collectively mapped actors as well as opportunities and challenges (see Fig. 2). At the end of the workshop, the different groups presented their ‘Systems flowers’ as different representations of Öland as a social-ecological system.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Conceptual visualization of a ‘Systems flower’ to map actors as well as opportunities and challenges around a specific initiative

Full size image
Workshop 2: landscape stories, practices and perspectives

In the second workshop, we visited three sites, identified in discussion with key informants to represent different collaborative initiatives around retaining water in the landscape. At each site, one or two actors, acting as hosts, guided the visit and shared personal stories and connections to the specific place. We facilitated discussions following these presentations to work towards a rich, shared understanding of different values and perspectives (i.e., about land use). The actors also had the opportunity to explore the surroundings on their own or while walking together. With the help of reflective diaries, we asked them about their associations with a certain place, which thoughts and feelings this place evoked in them, what triggered these thoughts and feelings, and if there was something interesting, new, or surprising they had learned about the place. The actors took one picture per site to capture their thoughts and feelings.

Afterwards, they presented one of their pictures to the group and explained why they had taken it. In small groups, they arranged their photos as a collage and discussed building or strengthening synergies between different interests and values given the multifunctionality of the places. The groups then brainstormed ‘Seeds for good collaboration’, which present positive aspects of collaboration.

Workshop 3: scenario thinking and strategies development

We used the Three Horizons approach to guide the participants to think about aspects of desirable futures, aspects of the present system which need to grow, be dismantled, or disappear, and necessary actions to move towards desirable futures in terms of water and landscape governance on Öland (Sharpe et al. 2016). We created a shared Three Horizons framework based upon the presentations of the insights from all groups.

In the next step, participants focused on the middle part of the Three Horizons framework to answer questions on what needs to change (Falardeau et al. 2019). They were asked to simultaneously think about changes in the landscape, changes in values, norms, and attitudes, as well as changes in the way they work. The different groups presented their ideas for change with a focus on barriers and actors involved. We used the ideas of the actors to complement the center part of the shared Three Horizons framework. After clustering ideas into ‘rough strategies’, participants voted for strategies to develop. With the help of a mind-map and some prompting questions, participants drafted strategies in four groups for navigating change towards desirable future visions. The different groups presented their strategies in plenary.

Data collection and analysis

To address our research questions, we qualitatively analyzed the co-produced materials generated during the different activities in the three workshops, using a deductive-abductive approach (Creswell and Creswell 2018). The three knowledges were used as propositions to assign emerging topics to different categories. We reviewed and revised the content of the categories, created sub-categories, coded on, and analyzed the identified themes (Miles et al. 2020; Tracy 2020). We incorporated quotes from our workshop notes and insights from the reflection rounds to present the empirical findings similar to Fritz et al. (2021) in the form of the systems, target, and operational knowledge of the actors and compare how actors discussed problems and their solutions at different times during the three workshops.

Positionality and ethics

We acknowledge that we, as transdisciplinary researchers, took on different and interacting roles during the three workshops (Kruijf et al. 2022; Caniglia et al. 2023). In addition to designing and facilitating the workshop series, we also studied the process and traced the learning, which takes place when different interests, perspectives, and experiences meet at multiple times throughout the process. It was our intention to support inclusivity of different ways of knowing, including local, experiential, and practitioners’ knowledge, and multiple ways of attributing value to certain aspects of the landscape (Tengö et al. 2014; Pascual et al. 2023). However, we adopted a normative stance regarding multifunctional landscapes, landscape-level interventions, as well as synergies and actor collaboration. In our role as change agents, we set out to mobilize the collective capacity of the actors to address Öland’s water governance challenge and contribute to the implementation of interventions.

While the lead author had no personal ties with the case area in the beginning of the project, the other two authors had personal relationships with Öland from childhood, upon which we drew when introducing our interest in the case and inviting participants to the workshops. Although the workshop series on Öland was owned and led by us, we wanted participating actors to inform the overall process. At different times, we sought information and specific input from the three key informants to take interests and concerns of the group into consideration. We are aware that there were other ways of jointly shaping the process.

To comply with ethical standards of doing transdisciplinary research, we began the workshop series with a presentation on conditions for a good dialogue and a shared code of conduct, which the participating actors approved and signed (see supplementary file 3).

Results

The first part of the results section outlines systems, target, and operational knowledge elicited and captured through different activities. For each of the three knowledges, we critically reflect on how the intentions behind the activity design matched how actors expressed the three knowledges. In the second part, we present the four strategies developed in Workshop 3 as concrete examples of actors’ shared systems, target, and operational knowledge (see Boxes 1–4). The third part of the results section describes and exemplifies changing perceptions of Öland’s water governance problem and potential solutions as captured by the documentation of and outputs from the workshops.

The three knowledges as expressed by the actors

Actors’ systems knowledge

The ‘Mood boards’ exercise illustrated actors’ knowledge about biophysical features, such as different animal species depending on water bodies in the landscape. We also captured participants’ understanding of root causes of the problem, such as the island’s history of agricultural drainage and current water consumption patterns, as well as (potential) consequences of water scarcity on Öland, for example the loss of biodiversity (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Example of a ‘Mood board’, which shows actors’ negative associations with water on the island of Öland

Full size image

The ‘Systems flowers’ exercise brought explicit management constraints to the forefront, such as the lack of resources, farming advice suited to the context (“Advice according to textbook, based on Östergötland and Skåne, and not adapted to Öland and the drought challenges”), good examples to learn from, and follow-ups on interventions. The exercise also captured problems with current legislation, for example inflexible institutions around land drainage. The ‘Systems flowers’ exercise contributed to a better understanding of actors who care, are affected by, decide on, or have an interest in certain interventions. Key actor groups mapped out in the exercise included landowners, farmers, interest organizations, authorities, researchers, and consultants.

The reflective diaries as part of the ‘Place-based walks and talks’ activity captured actors’ ideas about valued features and functions of specific landscapes, prompted by us asking them about their associations with the three sites, but also which thoughts and feelings each of the three places evoked in them and why. Landscape features and functions captured ranged from biophysical features (“A large natural water body in the middle of Stora Alvaret”, “High, unique and valuable biodiversity, the beauty of the open natural landscape”) to recreation (“Where I've taken the kids before and enjoyed the spring”), such as different leisure activities (“Wonderful nature excursions”, “Ice-skating on Saturday”), to production of food, where water serves as a means of production and surroundings serve as grazing land for animals (“Water for grazing animals”, “Water for agriculture”).

Several other activities supported the documentation and sharing of actors’ systems knowledge, especially the ‘Three Horizons’ exercise. Since we asked actors to think about what needs to change, several groups wrote down management constraints (“Inertia in the system—difficulty in authorizing actions”, “Administration instead of action!”) and additional issues related to the current legislation (“Driven by agricultural policy”, “Need to rethink drainage enterprises”).

When comparing the intended design of the workshop series to actors’ expressions of systems knowledge, the ‘Mood boards’, ‘Systems flowers’, and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises, which we intentionally designed to capture systems knowledge, helped us to trace actors’ understanding of the problem. The reflective diaries, originally designed for documenting actors’ reflections, contributed insights on how actors perceive features and functions of different landscapes, which we regard as important for understanding the context of Öland’s water scarcity problem.

Actors’ target knowledge

During the ‘Synergies mapping’, ‘Seeds for good collaboration’, and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises, actors generated material, which illustrates their vision of an island with water available, including different restoration efforts to ‘bring back’ water and keep more water in the landscape (“Restored water bodies/lakes/wetlands”, “Control flow peaks and extend the flow period”), and taking better care of this scarce resource through, for example, sustainable ways of using water (“Sustainable water management”).

The ‘Synergies mapping’ and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises contributed ideas on smart farming and improved farming practices, such as relying on efficient irrigation techniques (“Optimize irrigation! Water management”, “Shared irrigation dams”), using biochar to increase the retention of water and nutrients (“Soils will be more productive but also retain water”), and experimenting with new crops, to cope with increasingly unpredictable rainfall patterns. Another idea centered around Öland’s production landscape and its contribution to increased biodiversity and other natural and cultural values (“Cutting-edge farming in balance with nature and culture”) (see Fig. 4). To illustrate, actors shared ideas for building synergies between constructing irrigation dams for securing food production, while at the same time creating wetlands and opportunities for recreation and habitats for biodiversity (“Dams linked to landscape: biological diversity, food production, recreation”). The two exercises also introduced actors’ ideas on nature tourism and a longer tourism season on the island (“Changes in tourism and extended season”, “Birdwatching tourism”, “A tourism industry that gives and does not take—in balance, active and successful”). When thinking about future legislation, actors envisioned a water reform (“Reviewing regulations and interventions—how to enable, not restrict”), improving current legislation (“Improved water legislation”), and changes in drainage enterprises (“Reassessment of drainage enterprises”).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Example of a collage, which was one of the outcomes of the ‘Place-based walks and talks’ activity. In small groups, actors combined their photos with text, which states: “With no farmers and no [grazing] animals, also no nature and culture, neither any experiences or food from the Öland farming landscape”

Full size image

The ‘Seeds for good collaboration’ and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises captured aspirations for making processes easier (“Both draining and retention as simpler processes”). A solution-oriented approach (“Solution focus”) by the authorities could support actors in implementing interventions (“Nudging—make it easy to do the right thing”) or throughout the process of applying for a permit (“Faster and simpler permitting processes”). The two exercises also captured aspirations for using and spreading the existing expertise (“Spread knowledge”, “Disseminate knowledge and experience to all stakeholders”) through showcasing good examples of successful and collaborative interventions, but also how to better collaborate. Actors envisioned respectful and trustful ways of working together (“Free and unpretentious talks and actions”), engagement (“More open for collaboration”, “New forms of cooperation are emerging between authorities and stakeholders”), listening to each other (“Listen to landowners”, “Deep understanding and respect for each other's different points of view”), and collaborations beyond Öland (“Joint project with Gotland”, “International collaborations”). Some ideas during the two exercises focused on education, for example educating the public on water issues (“Public education”) or implementing water as a topic at school (“Water as a red thread at school—mathematics, biodiversity, where does our drinking water come from, where does the sewage water go”).

With the help of the ‘Seeds for good collaboration’ exercise, we captured ideas around the need for financial support for wetland restoration and new funding schemes and support from authorities.

We captured tensions around ownership questions and conflicts of interest (“Many ownership and interest conflicts”, “Fields or wetlands?”, “Water vs. other values”, “Competition around access to water”) as well as mistrust (“Mutual suspicion between farmers and authorities”, “Authorities are inflexible/difficult—farmers are against change/only look after themselves”, “Farmers' attitude—the attitude of the authorities”) during many activities, especially the ‘Systems flowers’, ‘Action steps for change’, and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises.

When assessing the intended design of the workshop series relative to actors’ expressions of target knowledge, we noted that the intentionally designed ‘Synergies mapping’, ‘Seeds for good collaboration’, and ‘Three Horizons’ exercises captured actors’ subjective perceptions, goals, and aspirations. Given the many goals our second workshop set out to achieve (see Table 1), we did not capture actors’ values attached to certain places or their understanding of other actors in written form. However, actors expressed more nuanced understandings of each other’s realities, which was reflected in the conversations held during and after the second workshop. Different exercises—not intentionally designed for capturing target knowledge—also surfaced tensions and conflicts of interest, which present examples of differing, sometimes even clashing values, goals, and aspirations, and present an important part of actors’ target knowledge.

Actors’ operational knowledge

The ‘Synergies mapping’, ‘Action steps for change’, and ‘Strategies development’ exercises contributed ideas on collaboration, such as the importance of local engagement to address the issues together (“Compromises are needed; you cannot have everything; you have to work together”, “Collaboration/dialogue for most beneficial interventions”), and ideas for a potential educational entry point for sharing knowledge on Öland’s water issues through cultural events, guides, educators, and museums (“Creating new narratives about the value of the landscape”, “Revive Vatten Smart [campaign for conserving drinking water]”, “Series of articles in Ölandsbladet”, “Stories about the wet Öland [before draining]”).

We captured ideas to change practices at social institutions, such as municipalities and other local authorities through the ‘Action steps for change’ and ‘Strategies development’ exercises. Ideas included providing better advice for farmers (“Öland-adapted, specific advice”, “Better advice on the benefits of water in the agricultural landscape”), offering follow-ups for different processes (“Follow-up on water measures”), showcasing good examples (“Look at/showcase good examples to learn from”, “Get together—look at good and bad examples”), and taking the local context into account when making decisions on water related measures (“Take local, site-specific knowledge into consideration”, “Joint site visit—look at conditions”).

The ‘Synergies mapping’ and ‘Inventory of existing initiatives’ exercises captured ideas on the needed know-how through calling for competency development (“Many skills are needed for taking action”), improving the knowledge base, as well as sharing and spreading knowledge around interventions (“We have knowledge that others need”).

During the ‘Action steps for change’, ‘Systems flowers’, and ‘Inventory of existing initiatives’ exercises, actors outlined ideas for changes in agricultural practices. To illustrate, they thought about keeping more water on and around the less intensively used grazing lands and fields (“Water retention in pastures and forests”, “Regulate for optimal water level in the cropland”, “Retain water in fields that are not currently farmed”), experimenting with new crops or different livestock breeds, trying out new irrigation techniques (“Technical solutions for irrigation”), or reusing water for irrigation. Ideas on improved water management through water-saving technologies (“Water-saving measures at all levels”), taking care of wastewater (“Use treated wastewater”, “Use the same water several times”), improving drinking water supplies, and using rainwater emerged during these three exercises as well. As another measure, actors pointed out wetland restoration regarding wetlands’ multiple benefits, such as increasing biodiversity (“Restoring water in the landscape”, “Experimental wetland—monitoring the impact on natural values”, “Rewetting of drained unused marshland”). Actors also shared ideas for changes in current legislation, especially around land drainage (“Trying to lobby for changed/ updated legislation”, “Changing land drainage legislation”).

When comparing the intended design of the workshop series to actors’ expressions of operational knowledge, we noted that the intentionally designed ‘Inventory of existing initiatives’, ‘Systems flowers’, ‘Action steps for change’, and ‘Strategies development’ exercises captured many different ideas for taking action to improve Öland’s water and landscape governance. The data showed that the ‘Synergies mapping’ exercise contributed ideas for collaborations and outlined different competencies needed, which we regard as an important component of social means for driving change.

Four strategies for addressing Öland’s water governance problem

The four different strategies (see Boxes 1–4) present accounts of actors’ shared systems, target, and operational knowledge. Although these strategies were developed in Workshop 3, they build on ideas and insights shared in the two previous workshops. To illustrate, the group had already connected actors to specific initiatives as part of the ‘Systems flowers’ exercise, which made it easier to think through who is needed for implementing the strategies.

Tracing changing perceptions of Öland's water governance problem and potential solutions

Drawing on the workshop outputs, we noticed recurring ideas about Öland’s water scarcity problem and potential solutions throughout the workshop series. To illustrate, actors presented management constraints as well as the current legislation and politics as problematic in both the first and third workshop. They also discussed ideas on changes in agricultural practices and improved water management as potential solutions during both the first and third workshop. While these examples underline actors’ knowledge and expertise on water issues prior to the workshop series, we still captured some changes in actors’ perceptions of problems and solutions with the help of the different workshop activities.

From general to more concrete understandings

Regarding changes in perceptions of the problem, actors named a couple of challenges linked to current management practices of local and regional authorities, such as the municipalities and the County Administrative Board already during the first workshop. These challenges problematized the absence of advice tailored to Öland’s conditions, good examples, and follow-up processes for interventions. During all three exercises in the third workshop, actors further unpacked these challenges: they criticized the lack of expertise in processing applications and requests, the bureaucratic burden, administration instead of action, and outdated ways of working.

While actors mentioned political disinterest during the ‘Mood boards’ exercise as part of Workshop 1, they presented more nuanced insights into problems related to current politics in the ‘Three Horizons’ and ‘Action steps for change’ exercises during Workshop 3: they criticized the lack of political will on municipality level to support projects around wetland restoration, which they link to politics guided by agricultural policies and populist tendencies threatening sustainability efforts. With a focus on the national level, actors also questioned political priorities since there seems to be few financial means and legal instruments for interventions around keeping water in the landscape.

Regarding changes in perceptions of potential solutions, actors brainstormed existing initiatives and created four ‘systems flowers’ during the first workshop. While all succeeded in grouping manifold actors around each initiative, it remained unclear how and in which ways some of these actors can collaborate–which could be also attributed to the limited time available for the activity. Ideas written down by the group working on ‘collaboration’ as one initiative remained especially vague. In contrast, during the last workshop, all four strategies were collaborative in nature: for every strategy, actors presented a range of stakeholders, who need to be part of translating the strategy into practice. Ideas about certain tasks related to stakeholders’ roles were clearly articulated. To better make use of people’s different expertise and skills, one group suggested to create spaces for bringing together different competencies, for example when educating the public about water on the island. Actors also proposed that actors active in civil society organizations become ‘infiltrators’, who challenge and change landowners’ ideas on land use.

During Workshop 1, actors discussed and wrote down many different technical solutions, such as reusing wastewater, saving water, and collecting rainwater. When analyzing the material created during Workshop 3, we noted ideas promoting the presence of water in the landscape and changing current perspectives (“Changing the way we look at water”, Water is good, water can be in the landscape”). With the goal to challenge other people’s way of looking at water in the landscape, actors referred to the vision of Öland as an island with water and mentioned the idea of a water plan.

Many suggestions for institutional changes centered around having access to more resources, and closely monitoring different interventions as discussed during Workshop 1. While actors acknowledged the need for understanding the local context to ensure that advice or interventions fit specific local conditions during Workshop 1, they proposed different entry points such as more meetings outside and in person to both meet and discuss their plans. We argue that these entry points also resulted from the second workshop, during which more nuanced understandings of others’ realities, preferences, and priorities surfaced.

Towards synergetic solutions

At the beginning of the workshop series, all actors could think of examples to illustrate the multifunctionality of landscapes on Öland. Captured as ‘tensions’, some of these examples were presented as contradicting each other (e.g., biodiversity conservation and agricultural practice). During the second workshop, more nuanced accounts and personal experiences of synergies emerged in the conversations at the three sites visited. The stories told by different participants highlighted that reconciling these tensions is possible through undertaking interventions, which take multiple values attached to the landscape into account. One of the farmers shared how combining an irrigation dam with a restored wetland ensures water availability for agricultural practices, supports biodiversity, and contributes to improving soil health. As part of the ‘Synergies mapping’ exercise, actors indicated how they could contribute to building synergies based on their knowledge, competency, experience, and engagement, add value to collaborative initiatives, and reconcile existing tensions. They also identified opportunities for supporting other actors in keeping more water in the landscape, which we regard an important step in moving towards collective change-making. Based on actors’ increased understanding of where their knowledge fits in with other people’s knowledge, we noted that all strategies developed during Workshop 3 centered new forms of collaboration, involving a range of different ‘experts’. All groups intended to address multiple problems simultaneously while taking Öland’s multifunctional landscapes into account, which creates synergetic effects among the four strategies as well.

Discussion: the role of process design and facilitation in fostering collective action

Our results show that actors’ perceptions of problems and solutions can change throughout knowledge co-production processes. By relating their own perceptions to those held by others, participating actors had an opportunity to reflect on their own stances, knowledge, and values (as demonstrated by Somerville et al. 2011), as well as different ways of viewing the water governance issue on the island. Since dialogue-based processes, such as the one presented here, create a space for shifting problem frames through negotiating differences and rethinking own positions (Charli-Joseph et al. 2023), we will discuss the role of a careful and deliberate workshop design for mobilizing, articulating, and connecting knowledge to nurture collective action (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Overview of the process of moving from individually held systems, target, and operational knowledge to collective action through mobilizing, articulating, and connecting knowledge

Full size image

Mobilizing and articulating knowledge

According to Langley et al. (2018), “knowledge has a tendency to stay in silos rather than being made visible and actively blended between groups” (p. 2). To break down silos and create bridges between knowledge holders, collaborative spaces need to enable them to mobilize and articulate their experience, perspectives, and knowledges–i.e., making them visible to themselves and others (cf. Tengö et al. 2017). Systems, target, and operational knowledge were entry points for achieving this end and widening the group’s perception of what kinds of knowledge are relevant, legitimate, and useful. Activities for mobilizing systems knowledge supported actors in articulating their diverse perceptions of the problem and its context. Activities with a main focus on surfacing target knowledge allowed actors to share and reflect on their own and others’ values, aspirations, and future goals. Activities with a focus on mobilizing and articulating operational knowledge generated insights into different pathways forward and who has agency to act. In line with a multiple evidence base approach, we moved from making knowledge visible and sharing it with others to prepare for applying it to make decisions and take action together in different settings (Tengö et al. 2014; Tengö et al. 2017; Malmer et al. 2018).

Walking together during the second workshop allowed us to also elicit actors’ tacit and embodied knowledges, which are layered in the landscape and present the necessary ‘know-how’ for translating ideas into action, but remain less useable when they cannot be articulated (Langley et al. 2018). For example, when visiting a combined irrigation dam and wetland, the farmer explained how important the dam was to maintain soil moisture and soil quality–aspects, which had not been part of the previous conversation. A conservation manager added that water regulation in the wetland could have benefits for different species and reminded the actors of the importance of thinking about potential synergies and trade-offs when undertaking specific interventions.

Connecting to others’ knowledge

Participatory methods support actors in connecting their own knowledge to other people’s knowledge (Moreno-Cely et al. 2021). Especially the ‘Action steps for change’ and ‘Strategies development’ exercises during the third workshop supported actors in identifying opportunities for addressing Öland’s water governance challenges. Several other activities allowed for better understanding the roles and mandates of others (André et al. 2023), which could lay the foundation for future collaborations. Recognizing where one’s knowledge fits in with others’ knowledge can also nurture proxy agency, where actors feel more inclined towards acting on the behalf of others or influence those with access to resources to reach desired outcomes (Bandura 2006). The willingness of actors working at bridging organizations, such as Hushållningssällskapet, an association providing agriculture and forestry extension services, and Öland’s Water Council, to support farmers in looking for funding for testing different interventions presents one such example from the third workshop on Öland.

Towards collective action

Charli-Joseph et al. (2023) highlight how “[s]ocial interactions, such as group discussions, community meetings, participatory workshops, or informal conversations, provide opportunities for people to […] create social and affective connections necessary for a sense of collective agency” (p. 1218). They also present affective responses and socially shared values and beliefs as key drivers motivating commitment to long-term, sustained action. In line with Juri et al. (2022), we noticed that “one of the most important achievements has been the generation of a cohesive group that attains a new shared way of knowing, redefining previous practices, and outlining a potential identity that unfolds from dialogue and negotiation” (p. 21). Creating these communities of practice or care networks (Bond and Barth 2020) could further develop actors’ ‘ethic of care’ as their “willingness to work collaboratively, be open and accountable and to seek to get the best possible outcome” (p. 9). In addition to fostering a collective responsibility to care (West et al. 2020), participatory processes can enable actors to bring about change (Clark et al. 2019). The four developed strategies present accounts of these ideas and illustrate that collective action can emerge in the process of mobilizing, articulating, and connecting individually held systems, target, and operational knowledge. Translating these strategies into practice will allow actors to further embed knowledge and practices within institutional and policy contexts (Fritz et al. 2021; Juri et al. 2022).

Reflections on our research approach

Designing and running a process, which is useful and engaging for diverse local actors but also generates data to answer research questions involves trade-offs. While the second workshop created opportunities for learning more about other values, preferences, and subjectively held positions of the actors, we decided to only provide our actors with reflective diaries and take notes of the group conversations ourselves. No video or audio recordings were made, which is likely to be a missed opportunity to further capture how actors relate to other people’s values, navigate situations where people have different ideas, or how they understood others. We decided to prioritize providing a safe space for these alternative viewpoints to be discussed, which in turn could strengthen the quality of the overall discussions. Nevertheless, different ideas about water management and wetland restoration surfaced, which became an integral part of the discussions of the remaining workshop days, and it was clear that the walks were key for building group relations and identity.

When it comes to interpreting workshop data, we saw a need for coding and analyzing the co-produced material in connection with our notes. Actors sometimes just wrote down one or two words on post-its, which makes it difficult to code, analyze, and later contextualize the findings. To reflect on our own bias and subjective experiences of the knowledge co-production process, we engaged in several reflection rounds to nurture joint sense-making. Additional material, including surveys and interviews with the participants, will allow for a more detailed analysis of the learning that took place during the workshops in our coming work.

Our findings are context-specific in several ways. It is likely that the personal relationships of two authors with the area were helpful to mobilize a group of people. The particular constellation of people in our group mattered for achieving outcomes, too. To further test the implications of our findings, we will compare the design of knowledge co-production processes relative to their intended outcomes between different case studies in the future.

Conclusion

The transparent analysis of our knowledge co-production process on Öland traces how informed design considerations lead to anticipated outcomes in terms of mobilizing, articulating, and connecting knowledge for improved capacity to handle climate change. With the help of the three knowledges and different complementary activities during all three workshops, we moved from exploring the multifunctionality of landscapes on Öland and understanding the different values, preferences, and priorities of the actors, to developing ideas for affecting change within governance processes.

To prepare for the implementation of the four developed strategies, a next step exists in distilling key messages and new information to be communicated to local and regional authorities as well as policy-makers (Daniels et al. 2020). Since long-term engagement in the process is crucial to monitor changes (Seguin et al. 2021), we also need to think through how we as researchers can support maintaining networks and partnerships and hand over ownership of the outcomes to local actors (Wyborn et al. 2019; Daniels et al. 2020).

To drive change in complex systems, “multiple interventions, at multiple levels of scale over multiple time horizons will be required” (Irwin 2020, p. 46). An area for further research exists in understanding how dialogue-based processes at the local scale can influence governance processes, policy-making, and institutional changes on larger scales. Hereby, it is crucial to investigate what kind of learning takes place within the small group to later translate insights and their implications for actors working at different scales (Seguin et al. 2021).

While the workshop series described in this paper only presents a potential beginning of a larger change-making process needed to address water issues on Öland, we are confident that these and similar dialogue-based processes present cornerstones in addressing sustainability challenges in an inclusive and equitable way.