hig.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 69) Show all publications
Holmgren, M., Kabanshi, A., Langeborg, L., Barthel, S., Colding, J., Eriksson, O. & Sörqvist, P. (2019). Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people's judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 48-55
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Deceptive sustainability: Cognitive bias in people's judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts
Show others...
2019 (English)In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, ISSN 0272-4944, E-ISSN 1522-9610, Vol. 64, p. 48-55Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

People's beliefs in the actions necessary to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are important to public policy acceptability. The current paper addressed beliefs concerning how periods of small emission cuts contribute to the total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, by asking participants to rate the atmospheric CO2 concentration for various time periods and emission rates. The participants thought that a time period with higher emission rates combined with a period of lower emission rates generates less atmospheric CO2 in total, compared to the period with high emission rates alone – demonstrating a negative footprint illusion (Study 1). The participants appeared to base their CO2 estimates on the average, rather than on the accumulated sum, of the two periods' emissions – i.e. an averaging bias (Study 2). Moreover, the effect was robust to the wordings of the problem presented to the participants (Study 3). Together, these studies suggest that the averaging bias makes people exaggerate the benefits of small emission cuts. The averaging bias could make people willing to accept policies that reduce emission rates although insufficiently to alleviate global warming.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019
Keywords
Climate change; Global warming; Averaging bias; Negative footprint illusion
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-29596 (URN)10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.005 (DOI)000484869600006 ()2-s2.0-85066452463 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2019-05-24 Created: 2019-05-24 Last updated: 2019-10-09Bibliographically approved
Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology & society, 24(1), 423-432, Article ID 2.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later
2019 (English)In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 24, no 1, p. 423-432, article id 2Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper explores the 20-year evolution of the social-ecological systems framework (SESs). Although a first definition of SES dates back to 1988, Berkes and Folke more thoroughly used the concept in 1998 to analyze resilience in local resource management systems. Since then studies of interlinked human and natural systems have emerged as a field on its own right, promoting interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration in a wide set of fields and practices. As the SES concept celebrates its 20-year existence we decided to make an overview of how authors use the concept in relation to research that deals with social and ecological linkages. Hence, we conducted a review of the SES concept using the Scopus database, analyzing a random set of journal articles on social-ecological systems (n = 50) regarding definitions of SES, authors’ main sources of inspiration in using the concept, as well as document type, subject area, and other relevant information. Although there is a steady increase of SES publications, we found that 61% of the papers analyzed did not even provide a definition of the term social-ecological system(s), a shortcoming that makes case comparisons difficult and reduces the usefulness of the concept. We also found three common SES frameworks that authors seem to be most commonly inspired by, referred to here as the original, the robustness, and multitier frameworks, respectively. The first can be characterized as a descriptive framework, the latter two more as diagnostic frameworks, useful for modeling. Although it would be a bit presumptuous of us to come up with a more thorough definition of the SES concept in this paper, we urge SES scholars to be more meticulous in making explicit what they mean by a social-ecological system when conducting SES research. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Resilience Alliance, 2019
Keywords
Multitier framework, Original SES framework, Robustness framework, SES modeling, Social-ecological systems, Scopus
National Category
Other Social Sciences Other Natural Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-29905 (URN)10.5751/ES-10598-240102 (DOI)2-s2.0-85065798993 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Mistra - The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
Available from: 2019-06-14 Created: 2019-06-14 Last updated: 2019-08-19Bibliographically approved
Gren, Å., Colding, J., Berghauser-Pont, M. & Marcus, L. (2019). How smart is smart growth?: Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction. Ambio, 48(6), 580-589
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How smart is smart growth?: Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction
2019 (English)In: Ambio, ISSN 0044-7447, E-ISSN 1654-7209, Vol. 48, no 6, p. 580-589Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Smart growth (SG) is widely adopted by planners and policy makers as an environmentally friendly way of building cities. In this paper, we analyze the environmental validity of the SG-approach based on a review of the scientific literature. We found a lack of proof of environmental gains, in combination with a great inconsistency in the measurements of different SG attributes. We found that a surprisingly limited number of studies have actually examined the environmental rationales behind SG, with 34% of those studies displaying negative environmental outcomes of SG. Based on the insights from the review, we propose that research within this context must first be founded in more advanced and consistent knowledge of geographic and spatial analyses. Second, it needs to a greater degree be based on a system's understanding of urban processes. Third, it needs to aim at making cities more resilient, e.g., against climate-change effects.

Keywords
City compaction, City densification, Environmentally friendly urban development, Smart growth, Sustainable urban development
National Category
Other Social Sciences Other Engineering and Technologies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-27873 (URN)10.1007/s13280-018-1087-y (DOI)30171568 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85053378151 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-09-06 Created: 2018-09-06 Last updated: 2019-06-24Bibliographically approved
Samuelsson, K., Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2019). Urban resilience at eye level: spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 70-80
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Urban resilience at eye level: spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes
2019 (English)In: Landscape and Urban Planning, ISSN 0169-2046, E-ISSN 1872-6062, Vol. 187, p. 70-80Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

An unresolved issue in creating resilient cities is how to obtain sustainability benefits from densification while not eroding the capacity of social-ecological systems to generate wellbeing for urban dwellers. To understand how different relationships between urban form and wellbeing together play out, we analysed geocoded experiential data (1460 experiences from 780 respondents) together with variables of the physical environment. Through statistical and spatial analysis, we operationalised resilience principles to assess what urban environments provide “resilience at eye level” – a diversity of experiences and a level of connectivity between them that limit adverse outcomes. We found 8 typologies of experiential landscapes – distinct compositions of 11 categories of experiences. Our analysis shows that typologies with experiences supportive of wellbeing are diverse and exist in environments that balance residents and workplaces, avoid extreme spatial integration and/or density and have accessible nature. Typologies with many experiences hindering wellbeing fail in one or several of these respects. Our findings suggest that resilience principles can act as a guiding heuristic for urban densification that does not compromise human wellbeing.

National Category
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-29049 (URN)10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.015 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-01-04 Created: 2019-01-04 Last updated: 2019-08-09Bibliographically approved
Colding, J., Colding, M. & Barthel, S. (2018). The smart city model: A new panacea for urban sustainability or unmanageable complexity?. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The smart city model: A new panacea for urban sustainability or unmanageable complexity?
2018 (English)In: Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, ISSN 2399-8083Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Despite several calls in this journal of debating the rapid growth of the literature on “smart cities”, such a debate has in large been absent. Smart cities are often un-critically launched as a sustainable way of developing cities. When cities become increasingly complex as its features are wired into the Internet, theories for their understanding is lagging behind. As it is prospected that a greater number of people and things will become connected by Information and Computer Technology, the complexity of urban systems will over time increase. Historical insights reveal that as complexity in societies increase, growth in energy consumption tends to follow. In this paper, we discuss whether complexity carried too far could lead to diminishing returns of energy saving and create unmanageable urban systems. As part of initiating such a debate, this commentary asks whether the smart cities development has a bearing on the issue whether a society can erode its capacity of sustaining itself? We pose this question against the backdrop that no one actually knows what type of society the smart cities model in the end will generate.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018
Keywords
Cities, smart cities, sustainability
National Category
Other Social Sciences Other Engineering and Technologies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-26675 (URN)10.1177/2399808318763164 (DOI)2-s2.0-85044354519 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-05-31 Created: 2018-05-31 Last updated: 2018-11-26Bibliographically approved
Colding, J., Colding, M. & Barthel, S. (2018). The smart city model: A new panacea for urban sustainability or unmanageable complexity?. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The smart city model: A new panacea for urban sustainability or unmanageable complexity?
2018 (English)In: Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, ISSN 2399-8083Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Despite several calls in this journal of debating the rapid growth of the literature on ‘‘smart cities’’, such a debate has in large been absent. Smart cities are often un-critically launched as a sustainable way of developing cities. When cities become increasingly complex as its features are wired into the Internet, theories for their understanding is lagging behind. As it is prospected that a greater number of people and things will become connected by Information and Computer Technology, the complexity of urban systems will over time increase. Historical insights reveal that as complexity in societies increase, growth in energy consumption tends to follow. In this paper, we discuss whether complexity carried too far could lead to diminishing returns of energy saving and create unmanageable urban systems. As part of initiating such a debate, this commentary asks whether the smart cities development has a bearing on the issue whether a society can erode its capacity of sustaining itself? We pose this question against the backdrop that no one actually knows what type of society the smart cities model in the end will generate.

Keywords
Cities, sustainability, smart cities
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-29119 (URN)10.1177/2399808318763164 (DOI)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2019-01-15 Created: 2019-01-15 Last updated: 2019-02-13Bibliographically approved
Barthel, S. & Colding, J. (2017). A Critical Perspective on the “Smart City” Model.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Critical Perspective on the “Smart City” Model
2017 (English)Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
Abstract [en]

As urban ecologists we support developing smoother traffic systems, providing citizens with more easily accessible information, and of course promoting citizen-participation and local democracy in political decision-making. However, and as is normally the common destiny when new models for sustainable development are appearing, investments in these “smarter” models run the risk of making people blind to problems that need more immediate concern. In short, governance is a matter of prioritizing among different goals. Governance is also about making sure that strong and powerful enterprises and business interests do not hijack the public debate

Publisher
p. 1
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25621 (URN)
Available from: 2017-11-28 Created: 2017-11-28 Last updated: 2018-11-26Bibliographically approved
Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2017). An urban ecology critique on the "Smart City" model [Letter to the editor]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 95-101
Open this publication in new window or tab >>An urban ecology critique on the "Smart City" model
2017 (English)In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 164, p. 95-101Article in journal, Letter (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of this letter is to raise some critical concerns and gaps in the booming literature on Smart Cities; concerns that we think deserve greater attention from scientists, policy makers and urban planners. Using an urban ecology lens, we provide some reflections that need to forgo any wider-scale implementation of the Smart City-model with the goal to enhance urban sustainability. We discuss that the Smart City literature must better include analysis around social sustainability issues for city dwellers. Focus here should start on health issues and more critical analysis about whom the Smart City is for. Also, the literature must address issues of resilience and cyber security, including how Smart City solutions may affect the autonomy of urban governance, personal integrity and how it may affect the resilience of infrastructures that provide inhabitants with basic needs, such as food, energy and water security. A third major gap in this literature is how smart city developments may change human-nature relations. Focus here should start on how Smart City technologies may hinder or support children’s learning towards a stronger psychological connection with nature. Discussions are also needed on how the Smart City model may affect pro-environmental behavior more broadly.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Ltd, 2017
Keywords
Ecology; Sustainable development, Critical analysis; Personal integrity; Pro-environmental behaviors; Social sustainability; Urban governance; Urban planners; Urban sustainability; Water security, Smart city
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25135 (URN)10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.191 (DOI)000409290700009 ()2-s2.0-85027512016 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01193
Note

Funding: Interreg. Central Baltic Project called LIVE BALTIC CAMPUS (project nb. CB155), the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Formas project ZEUS (dnr: 2016-01193)

Available from: 2017-08-31 Created: 2017-08-31 Last updated: 2018-11-26Bibliographically approved
Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2017). Resilience and Sustainable Development (1ed.). In: Schewenius, M., Keränen, P., al Rawaf, R. (Ed.), Dreams and Seeds: The role of campuses in sustainable urban development (pp. 28-29). Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre and Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Resilience and Sustainable Development
2017 (English)In: Dreams and Seeds: The role of campuses in sustainable urban development / [ed] Schewenius, M., Keränen, P., al Rawaf, R., Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre and Metropolia University of Applied Sciences , 2017, 1, p. 28-29Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre and Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, 2017 Edition: 1
National Category
Environmental Sciences Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25946 (URN)978-91-87355-43-1 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-01-08 Created: 2018-01-08 Last updated: 2018-11-26Bibliographically approved
Schewenius, M., Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2017). Social-Ecological Integrated Planning and Design (1ed.). In: Schewenius, M., Keränen, P., al Rawaf, R. (Ed.), Dreams and Seeds: The role of campuses in sustainable urban development (pp. 47-49). Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre; Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Social-Ecological Integrated Planning and Design
2017 (English)In: Dreams and Seeds: The role of campuses in sustainable urban development / [ed] Schewenius, M., Keränen, P., al Rawaf, R., Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre; Metropolia University of Applied Sciences , 2017, 1, p. 47-49Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre; Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, 2017 Edition: 1
National Category
Social Sciences Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25947 (URN)978-91-87355-43-1 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-01-08 Created: 2018-01-08 Last updated: 2018-11-26Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-7644-7448

Search in DiVA

Show all publications