Figure 1
Causal pathway between policy issues and targets, mediated through a series of intervening factors.
Figure 2
a) Conceptual illustration of a single causal pathway linking a policy issue to an environmental target by positive or negative causal steps (represented by arrows) and different intervening factors. b) Example of a common, intervening factor linking two causal pathways. Construction of wetlands and sustainable storm water management both increases water filtering and treatment, which could decrease leakage from land-based production, which commonly increases eutrophication, which ultimately impacts the water quality of lakes. The two policy issues become interdependent by both increasing water filtering and treatment as a common, intervening factor in their respective pathway towards improving water quality, which opts for their coordination. c) the emergence of policy issue interdependency through a common, intervening factor. The common, intervening factor can be of any type, and be preceded by a varying number of steps and other intervening factors. Policy issues can link directly to all types of intervening factors.
Figure 3
The Norrström basin, located in Mideast Sweden (Vattenmyndigheterna, Länsstyrelsen, SMHI, Lantmäteriet, 2020, reproduced from Hedlund et al., 2021). Names in bold refer to major cities, and names in regular font refer to catchment areas for the collaborative venues included in data collection.
Figure 4
The methodological procedure for assessing policy issue interdependencies. The two policy issues in the figure together have three steps (illustrated by arrows) to their common, intervening factors.
Figure 5
Interdependency by strict, intermediate, and generous thresholds as a selection of the network. All policy issue interdependency combinations fit within this diagram. The y axis categorises factor types included in causal pathways, while the x axis enumerates the number of steps included in each pathway linking the policy issues with the common, intervening factor.
Table 1
Policy issues in the Norrström basin (reproduced from Hedlund et al., 2021). Names in bold correspond to shortened names of policy issues in Figure 6.
| POLICY ISSUES |
|---|
| Environmental monitoring of non-native species |
| Regulation and distribution of water flow |
| Maintaining fish connectivity |
| Protection of cultural heritage |
| Ecological restoration of meandering watercourses |
| Climate change adaptation |
| Construction of wetlands |
| Sustainable storm water management |
| Implementation of phosphorus dams |
| Implementation of buffer zones |
| Implementation of lime treatment |
| Implementation of private sewage |
| Environmental monitoring of water quality and recipients |
| Upstream regulation by the source |
| Treatment of benthic sediment |
| Managing invasive species |
Figure 6
Policy issue networks based on factor types a) contributing factor (strict threshold producing a density of 0,175) b) direct threat (intermediate threshold producing a density of 0,292) c) biophysical stressor (intermediate threshold producing a density of 0,417) d) environmental target (generous threshold producing a density of 0,967). These results confirm an increase in network density the more intervening factors are included. Thicker ties illustrate that both issues are overall linked to many of the same factors, even though these can also be factors that connect the respective issues to other factors and not necessarily only to each other.
Table 2
Count of reinforcing and counteracting policy issue pairs by their distance (number of steps) to their common, intervening factor. More reinforcing interdependencies have the shortest possible distance to the common, intervening factor, which means that no other intervening factors come between the policy issues and their factor. These interdependencies may therefore be easier to perceive for policy actors.
| DISTANCE TO CLOSEST COMMON, INTERVENING FACTOR | NUMBER OF REINFORCING POLICY ISSUE PAIRS | NUMBER OF COUNTERACTING POLICY ISSUE PAIRS | REINFORCING AND COUNTERACTING POLICY ISSUE PAIRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum (2 steps) | 13 | 5 | – |
| 3 steps | 7 | 12 | 3 |
| 4 steps | 11 | 15 | – |
| 5 steps | 13 | 8 | 2 |
| 6 steps | 6 | 15 | – |
| 7 steps | 5 | 4 | – |
| Maximum (8 steps) | – | 7 | – |