Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Case-Study-Of-Residents--Perspectives

1. A Case Study of Residents’ Perspectives on the Eutrophication in the Coastal
Inlets of Östhammar Municipality
View from the Karö bridge, facing Östhammarsfjärden © Hildur Hardardóttir
By
Hansen Elin, Harðardóttir Hildur, Naess Camilla, Mueller Sophie,
Pettersson Elvira, Siachiyako Clive
Swedish University of Agricultural Science
Department of Urban and Rural Development
2014/2015

2. Background
Since the city of Östhammar was granted privilege in 1368, the area experienced eventful human
activities such as being a trading community for the 1500’s silversmiths and leather tanning and
metal mining during the late 1800’s. Twenty century activities significant to the context of this
report are implementations include individual sewage systems in the 1930’s, the Karö bridge and
municipality water treatment plant of the 1960s. In addition, the area has been experiencing
topographical changes due to land rise, causing shallower water in the inlets. 2010 data shows
that 4, 500 residents lived in the city of Östhammar and in the rural areas around the coastal
inlets - the bays of Östhammar. The bay on the north is Granfjärden and one on the south is
Östhammarsfjärden. Karö bridge lays between them – crossing the channel of Husbacka.
Figure 1: The catchment area of the bays of Östhammar - Granfjärden and Östhammarsfjärden.
This report is one outcome of a case study exploring the current situation in the social-ecological
system concerning eutrophication in the bays. As a whole, the case study aims at creating a
holistic view of a complex situation (e.g. timeline and rich picture) involving both ecological
processes but not least social actors such as institutions, organisations and citizens. These
elements are both affecting and being affected by the eutrophication issue, i.e. the water quality
in the bays becoming poorer. As a specific purpose of this report we have chosen to focus on the
perspectives of the residents in the area, as we believe they are the actors most directly affected
by the development of this issue.
The poor water quality in the bays of Östhammar[1] has long been a fact to people living in the
area. Further, authorities have been aware and experts have performed numerous studies to

3. investigate the ecological and chemical status, which is characterized by increased vegetation
(e.g. reeds), poor water transparency and high levels of nitrogen, chlorophyll and phosphorus.
According to the European Union Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), the bays receive a
“bad status” compared to the surrounding ground and surface waters.
The situation characterizes of different institutions, organisations and groups of people being
concerned about the water development in the bays and they either have completed or want (or
plan) to implement measurements that may improve the situation, e.g. individual sewage,
building a new bridge, creating wetlands, fishing experiments and aluminium for sediment
phosphorus control. Still, what has emerged from the case study is that actors and stakeholders
do not share a common picture of what causes the eutrophication let alone what could improve
the situation. Moreover, scientists have presented contradicting results and see an urgent need to
investigate the causes further.
As a result the municipality of Östhammar, experts, residents and other parties have various
views on what should be of priority. This report will highlight perspectives and opinions of some
of the residents - how they define the situation, the causes and what they believe could improve
the water quality in the bays.
The following section will provide a short introduction to the methodological approach used in
this case study – the soft systems method (SSM). Thereafter, the thematic issue of the residents’
perspectives will be further explored and developed in models of the SSM approach such as
through a multiple cause diagram and a conceptual model suggesting a transformation of the
system to a more desired state. Finally, the report rounds up in a discussion and conclusion of the
soft systems process as well as reflecting over feedback received at a workshop with the study’s
informants – where main results were presented and discussed.
The Soft Systems Method (SSM)
A soft systems method has been used in order to gather data and to gain a holistic view of the
issue. The method is considered to offer a more effective approach towards improving complex
and persistent problems.
[2]
The approach provides space for critical reflection on what kind of
knowledge is available on the issue and what actors are engaged. Also, it assesses whether
people’s feelings have been included in previous actions and how to include them at present in
order to improve the situation, among other considerations. The method enables various actors to
tap into the intelligence and wisdom of each other in order to improve the quality of their
decisions and performance (Daniels and Walker, 2001).
Although complex situations tend to be ‘wicked’ and ‘messy,’ applying the systemic approach in
such situations is valuable for considering the interconnected causes of the problem (Checkland
and Scholes, 2001). It promotes integrating input from different actors to improve the situation.

4. It is about citizen participation, collaboration and deliberation on issues that affect their
wellbeing. Its aim is to design a series of activities to attain the presupposed approaches of
dealing with complex problems (Daniels and Walker, 2001).
The data gathered for this study is partly based on previous research findings, however the main
data collection has been through semi-structured interviews with informants. The informants of
the case study have been identified through their role as citizens (residents), officials and/or
experts (scientists) that have professional experiences of the issue. This report focuses on the
interview data from the residents, who either have been active participants in the issue, such as
part of action groups (e.g. Save the Bays), or followed the process in other ways through
municipality meetings or even observing passively through e.g. media.
The thematic issue: Residents’ perspectives
This section presents the soft systems methods models that we have applied to our theme – the
residents’ perspectives of the eutrophication in the bays of Östhammar. The purpose is to “zoom-
in” in on how the perspectives, opinions and attitudes of the residents are interconnected with the
remaining elements of the entire situation, as well; using a conceptual model we suggest what
might help to move the system from today’s unsustainable trajectory to - what in our opinion -
could be an improved situation. The rich picture below emerged from the case study and it seeks
to capture the complexity of time, space and actors that are involved in the issue – the red parts
represent the residents.
Figure 2: A rich picture of the situation regarding eutrophication in the bays of Östhammar.
Most of the residents interviewed have seen changes in the area due to effects of eutrophication,
such as increased vegetation and decreased visibility in the water. The increasing amount of

5. reeds within the bays’ catchment area, which has narrowed the bays, was also mentioned several
times. Some residents felt clearing the reeds for recreational purposes (bathing/swimming,
fishing, boating) would be a good action. However, not all residents agree that the reed is
increasing. One informant living by Granfjärden stated that the reeds close to their property have
retreated in past years.
Residents held different opinions of what has or is causing the poorer water quality. Several
explanations emerged in the interviews e.g. it being a natural loading of sediments, the Karö
bridge stopping the flow between the bays, the water treatment plant lacking capacity to clean
the municipal sewage water, an old mine leaking phosphorus, an old plant school leaking
chemicals and the out-dated individual sewage systems from the 1930’s.
It also became apparent that some of the residents have heard experts expressing contradicting
things about the causes behind the eutrophication, resulting in themselves being confused. Some
residents said to have been participating in public meetings regarding the issue for up to 35
years, and made clear that now they want more action to be taken – mostly referring to the
municipality being inactive.
The most residents interviewed seemed to agree that creating the wetlands for additional
purification of municipal sewage could be a promising step forward - if it will have the desired
effects. Some also approved of the idea of aluminium addition for sediment phosphorus control.
However, people were concerned about the great costs of such operations compared to how
uncertain the expected effect on water quality in general would be. Some residents expressed a
lack of confidence or trust in the water authority (feel its capacity to treat water is low). Others
still have faith in the municipality but were unhappy with their lack of action in the matter.
The residents’ differ in their opinion of whether or not to reconstruct the Karö bridge. On one
hand, some feel that a new bridge should be of high priority, it would increase the water flow
between the two bays as well as make it possible for smaller motor boats to pass under. The
increased flow would mean that the water quality would improve in both bays. On the other
hand, some residents are against changing the bridge and think the effects could be a flow of
polluted water from Granfjärden downstream to Östhammarsfjärden (some of these voices
perceive the two bays as separate systems, that should not be thought of as a whole).
The Multiple Cause Diagram
The multiple cause diagram (below Figure 3) shows that there are several perspectives on the
problem due to the residents’ different backgrounds, experiences and knowledge as well as the
fact that they live in different parts of the area. Consequently, different perspectives lead to
different expectations on the development of for example the water quality, a new bridge,
removal of reeds, the use of aluminium or creation of wetlands. This appears to result in different

6. attitudes towards other actors, the situation in the two bays and the municipality. The different
attitudes indicate both confidence and lack of confidence towards the municipality.
Figure 3: A multiple-cause diagram showing possible connection between certain factors, beginning with different
perspectives that affect other developments.
Trust in the municipality builds support for (political) action, whereas lack of trust erodes such
support. However, whether trusting or not trusting the municipality, residents seem to attend
gatherings where the eutrophication is on the agenda (e.g. organised by the municipality) – as
they seem to look for opportunities to be engaged and express their opinions. Their feeling of
frustration increases when they feel not being listened to. This disappointment leads to them
seeking other channels to be heard e.g. forming action groups like the “Save the bays” (Rädda
Fjärdarna), going through media, NGOs or seeking help at higher levels of government.
Further, a lack of communication and mutual understanding between involved actors seems to be
a reinforcing causal loop of confusion/uncertainty amongst residents, which reinforces distrust
and dissatisfaction.

7. TWOCAGES
This part of the SSM examines possible systems that could be a solution to the issue. The model
provides a possibility to analyse different future scenarios. It is also an attempt to achieve
progress in the issue (Daniels and Walker, 2001).
Transformation
A transformation to move from the current situation, where residents lack trust in some
municipality actions with regards to improving the water quality in the bays. Several residents
feel that not enough action (or right action) is being taken, which is worsened by lack of funding
for improvement measures. They also feel that there is a confusion (e.g. among experts)
regarding causes of the eutrophication.
To move to improved communication in the meeting arenas where collaborative processes are
created, leading to mutual understanding, enhanced trust and deliberative decision-making.
Worldview
The situation is not sustainable and something must be done. However, the municipality is not
taking responsibility, different perspectives are confusing and there is a high level of uncertainty
which is causing frustration. There is a need for consistent information and the right actions.
Owner
The Östhammar municipality is the owner. It has the power to control what action is taken and
what measurements are implemented. The municipality is the driver of the process, thus can
ensure the involvement of the residents in setting the agenda and to ensure that the proposed
systems works accordingly. The government can however be the responsible actor (owner) for
constructions such as improving the bridge.
Clients
Tourists, residents, the municipality, the CAB, experts and future generations define that
category of clients who are either beneficiaries or victims in the situation.
Actors
Important actors are residents, the municipality, the CAB, experts (e.g. scientific) and other
institutions such as the Transport Authority because they are involved in the process for
changing the situation.
Guardians
Those responsible to testify for those who cannot speak during the process are: politicians (who
represent the citizens), NGO’s and companies (e.g. tourist agencies).
Environment

8. Time and money pressure may affect the efforts to implement the transformation as well as
global warming, climate change goals and emission reduction targets on a long-term view.
(sub)System
There are several activities that should be implemented in the work to achieve transformation.
The municipality could offer more meetings and workshops. Forums or arenas have to be created
as well as information platforms (e.g. leaflets, social media, websites) for everyone who is
interested or has an interest in the development of this situation.
Root definition
A system to improve communication in the meeting arenas to create collaborative processes that
lead to mutual understanding; enhancing trust and deliberative decision-making. By deciding on
a timeframe and goals, a budget, work group members, hiring a facilitator to monitor and
manage the processes in several meetings and workshops in order to create mutual understanding
among actors and trust in authorities (municipality) and their actions. This system will be
managed (owned) by the municipality, who has the responsibility to involve and include the
clients in the collaborative process. This will benefit and may affect the clients, the residents, the
municipality, tourists and experts. The system will be guarded by politicians, the CAB, NGOs
(environmental conservationists) and tourist interests (e.g. tourist agencies/companies).
The conceptual model
The conceptual model (see below Figure 4) illustrates what could be possible steps to transform
the system onto a more sustainable trajectory. The current situation, from a residents’
perspective, is characterized by confusion, disappointment, decreased trust in authorities - as
they want to see them taking more responsibility and action in order to improve the situation.
Therefore, the conceptual model proposes steps to instead enhance trust and good
communication but foremost to create mutual understanding. Our hope is that this kind of
participatory process may enhance deliberative decision-making, meaning that residents and
other involved actors get the opportunity to be heard and to influence the decisions that will
affect their environment and future.
Firstly, we recommend the municipality to form a united front through a group within the
municipality responsible for the eutrophication issue. Secondly, they should appoint - a
preferably external - facilitator to drive and monitor the participatory process. The facilitator’s
first task will be to engage residents in the process, to have them gathered to agree on what
priorities they want to push for and to have them choose their representatives for further steps. It
is important that the residents’ assembly plans for follow-up meetings/platforms for feedback
and reflection. Next, a meeting/platform is created whereto all the involved actors are invited to
participate with representatives for their interests in the matter (the clients: tourist industry,
residents, municipality, CAB, experts etc.). This actors assembly will then have to build a
common understanding and definition of the situation (causes and future) and to agree on

9. priorities of action, who is responsible and what are the time frames. Afterwards, there should be
time for reflection and feedback. In a follow-up meeting, actors should agree on next steps and
actions. An extremely important part following each action is that time for reflection and
feedback back to the actors’ platform/assembly is provided and planned for. The facilitator is
responsible for monitoring the process in accordance with the key criteria; conditions leading to
a process of mutual understanding, openness and respect to all parties as well as participation.
Moreover, timekeeping and time efficiency are important criteria. The facilitator makes
appropriate action, adjustments and control over the situation whenever necessary.
The time frame for the process could be about two years, or even more. The actions implemented
in the later stages of the model have an uncertain time frame depending on their nature and
scope. The environment can affect those actions as well. Several factors as time and money
pressure, (e.g. funding), motivation and achieving climate change goals or emission reduction
targets could hinder the process of transformation.
Figure 4: The Conceptual Model shows the transformation and activities to reach the desired output, to enhance
trust, better communication, and mutual understanding for improving the situation.

10. [1] There are other bays with similar status that belong to the municipality of Östhammar, however are not in the
focus of this case study
[2]
Derived from: www.appliedsystemsthinking.com

11. Discussion and conclusions
Several concluding remarks can be made when returning to the focus on how the residents define
the situation, their views on the causes of the eutrophication, their preferred actions to improve
the situation and what should be prioritized. Despite the diversity of views on the situation,
residents’ perspectives provide a summary of their feelings and desired actions in this
challenging situation.
The rich picture and the timeline of important events in the history of the eutrophication issue in
the bays of Östhammar appeared to be an appreciated overview for the workshop participants. It
seemed to capture the complexity of the situation and display the interconnections – which might
provide insights for possible improvements.
View from the Karö bridge, facing Granfjärden © Hildur Hardardóttir
A desire for more cooperation arenas for mutual prioritization and action was emphasized at the
workshop. The inclusion of local perspectives in the decision-making process came out as the
desired approach by the municipality. The municipality director stated that...“we need
continuous dialogue and action accompanied by feedback to residents. Priority actions based on
available funds should be done in consultation with locals and other actors.” Residents
themselves also desired this as they felt the lack of platforms to discuss and work forward.

12. Furthermore, the feedback from participants in the workshop gave us an impression that the
suggested improvements were good and appreciated for enhanced cooperation, creating and
strengthening mutual understanding and providing feedback to residents. However, it was
difficult for us to get feedback on weaknesses of our proposed improvements. Participants gave
us an impression that they were impressed and were positive to the idea of what we proposed.
Therefore, we could conclude that our conceptualization, illustration and communication of
feasible and desirable transformation, including proposed activities to improve the situation were
successful. Our measure of this success is based on the type of feedback we received.
The SSM process had a mix of strengths and weaknesses. In terms of strengths, the process
enabled us to gather information, translate it and communicate it to the participants in the
workshop in a simplified way possible. It showed connections of issues raised by local people
and other actors. It further provided an idea where interventions could be carried-out to improve
the situation. A chain of activities to be undertaken and how they should be monitored was
provided to ensure that things were within track. The overview of activities provided a reflection
time and feedback loops to different actors in the implementation process.
Also, since our sample of residents is small it is hard to make generalizations about what are
dominant perspectives and attitudes in this matter, i.e. the reliability is limited.
Management recommendations
Actors should provide a time-frame for investigating issues and taking action so that people’s
confidence in them is not lost. Further, taking too long time has already created an impression
with the residents that the municipality either has limited capacity or is not willing to take action.
This risks a lack of public support in future management.
Feedback on actions being taken or causes of delay to take action should be provided to the
public. This enhances confidence and shows respect to actors who have been involved in the
process. Actors may be motivated to take part in future engagements, knowing the cause of lack
of action in the previous agreed-on actions.
Management should also try to be as open as possible when dealing with public issues. Openness
to allow deliberations over issues of public interest. It encourages effective public participation
and support. The openness includes being flexible to new ideas and suggestions to improve the
situation. It helps create arenas for mutual prioritizations.
What could have worked differently?
Capturing young people’s views on the situation would have added another dimension to
different perspectives, especially since the municipality indicated that young people shunned
public meetings discussing the situation. Demographic variation (age, gender and socioeconomic

13. status) would have provided another dimension of perspectives. Most of the local people
interviewed were men, and adding female voices would have broadened the perspectives for a
more inclusive collaborative process. Also a broader geographic selection of representatives
could have given another dimension of the perspective, as residents from different areas
experienced the problem from different angles.
Has this process lead to collaborative learning?
We believe collaborative learning happened as actors presented their perspectives on how best
they think the situation could be improved. The problem affects the residents in different ways,
thus their views are learning points to the authority (and residents themselves) on actions the
residents feel should be prioritized. It provided an arena for obtaining diversified perspectives
over the issues and seek commonality on desired actions in order to improve the situation.

14. References
CHECKLAND, P. and SCHOLES, J. (2001) Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester:
Wiley.
DANIELS, S. and WALKER, G. (2001) Working Through Environmental Conflict: The
Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
APPLIED SYSTEMS THINKING. (2008) Importance of Systems Thinking Today. [Online]
Available from: http://www.appliedsystemsthinking.com/importance.html. [Accessed: 11th
December 2014].