| 1. |
- Blicharska, Malgorzata, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
The water–energy–food–land–climate nexus : Policy coherence for sustainable resource management in Sweden
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Environmental Policy and Governance. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1756-932X .- 1756-9338.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The concept of a ‘nexus’ across issues regarding the management of natural resources has gained increasing academic attention in recent years, but there is still relatively limited research on the application of the nexus approach for evaluating policies. This study analyses coherence among the main goals of five policy areas (water, energy, food, land, and climate) in Sweden, drawing upon a desk review, expert assessment, and interaction with stakeholders. The main objective is to enhance understanding of opportunities and challenges posed by such a nexus, understand policy interactions in Sweden, and provide insights into the use of policy coherence analysis as an integral part of resource nexus assessments. The analysis reveals synergies and conflicts between policy goals. For example, Sweden's environmental quality objectives (EQOs) regarding land and all the goals regarding water are either synergistic or neutral. Likewise, climate policy goals are well aligned with the goals regarding energy and ground water quality. On the other hand, the key goal for agriculture, which is food production, is the least coherent with those of the other policy areas. There are conflicts between the EQOs and goals regarding agricultural and forestry production. Stakeholders also indicate that climate goals are treated with higher priority than the goals of other policy areas. Notably, some interactions between policy goals are synergistic or conflicting depending on the context or their interpretation. Implementation of existing goals depends on relevant stakeholders' interests, priorities and interpretations, and on existing prevailing discourses in society, often supported by higher level policies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Huitema, Dave, et al.
(författare)
-
The governance of adaptation : choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 21:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.
|
|
| 3. |
- Plummer, Ryan, et al.
(författare)
-
Flood Governance : A multiple country comparison of stakeholder perceptions and aspirations
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Environmental Policy and Governance. - : Wiley. - 1756-932X .- 1756-9338. ; 28:2, s. 67-81
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Flooding is routinely among the most disastrous annual events worldwide with extensive impacts on human wellbeing, economies and ecosystems. Thus, how decisions are made about floods (i.e. flood governance) is extremely important and evidence shows that it is changing, with non-governmental actors (civil society and the private sector) becoming involved in new and sometimes hybrid governance arrangements. This study investigates how stakeholders perceive floods to be governed and how they believe decision-making ought to occur, with the intent of determining to what extent changing governance is evident on the ground and how well (or poorly) it aligns with desired governance arrangements. Flood governance stakeholders were surveyed in five flood-prone geographical areas from Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The findings suggest that a reconfiguration of flood governance is underway with relatively little consensus regarding the specific arrangements and mechanisms in place during this transitionary period. Across the five cases, stakeholders indicated that they wanted flood governance to be organized at multiple levels, with strong government involvement and with diverse actor groups, and through mechanisms that match the involvement of these actors, with a lack of desirability for some specific configurations involving the private sector in particular. There was little alignment between stakeholder perceptions of governance currently in place and their desired arrangements, except for government involvement. Future research directions highlight the importance of the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in assessing flood governance, and following the transition in flood governance over time.
|
|
