Change search
Refine search result
1 - 26 of 26
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Blumenthal, Barbara
    et al.
    Division for Engineering, Sciences, Physics and Mathematics.
    Forsberg, Jan
    Division for Engineering, Sciences, Physics and Mathematics.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology. Division for Engineering, Sciences, Physics and Mathematics.
    Svensson, Torbjörn
    A Procedure for Flood Preventive Planning2004Report (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Graversgaard, Morten
    et al.
    Aarhus University, Denmark.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013). Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    Smith, Laurence
    SOAS University of London, UK.
    Gertz, Flemming
    SEGES, Landbrug & Fødevarer F.M.B.A., Denmark.
    Højberg, Anker Lajer
    Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Denmark.
    Langford, John
    University of Melbourne, Australia.
    Martinez, Grit
    Ecologic Institute, Germany.
    Mostert, Erik
    Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
    Ptak, Emilia
    Aarhus University, Denmark.
    Peterson, Heidi
    University of Minnesota, MN, USA; International Plant Nutrition Institute, MN, USA.
    Stelljes, Nico
    Ecologic Institute, Germany.
    van den Brink, Cors
    Royal Haskoning DHV, The Netherlands; Groningen University, The Netherlands.
    Refsgaard, Jens Christian
    Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Denmark.
    Opportunities and barriers for water co-governance: A critical analysis of seven cases of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America2018In: Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, E-ISSN 2071-1050, Vol. 10, no 5, article id 1634Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance

  • 3.
    Gray, Steven
    et al.
    Michigan State Univ USA.
    Voinov, Alexey
    Univ Technol Sydney, Australia.
    Paolisso, Michael
    Univ Maryland, USA.
    Jordan, Rebecca
    Rutgers State Univ, USA.
    BenDor, Todd
    Univ N Carolina, USA.
    Bommel, Pierre
    CIRAD, Green Res Unit, Frankrike, Univ Costa Rica.
    Glynn, Pierre
    US Geol Survey, 432 Natl Ctr, Reston, VA 20191 USA.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013). Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Centre for Climate and Safety (from 2013).
    Hubacek, Klaus
    Univ Maryland, Dept Geog Sci, College Pk, USA.
    Introne, Josh
    Michigan State Univ, USA.
    Kolagani, Nagesh
    Indian Inst Informat Technol IIIT Chittoor, Sri City, India.
    Laursen, Bethany
    Michigan State Univ, USA.
    Prell, Christina
    Univ Maryland, USA.
    Olabisi, Laura Schmitt
    Michigan State Univ, USA.
    Singer, Alison
    Michigan State Univ, USA.
    Sterling, Eleanor
    Amer Museum Nat Hist, Ctr Biodivers & Conservat, 200 Cent Pk West, New Yor.
    Zellner, Moira
    Univ Illinois, USA.
    Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling2018In: Ecological Applications, ISSN 1051-0761, E-ISSN 1939-5582, Vol. 28, no 1, p. 46-61Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human-environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

  • 4.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    A Framework for Sustainable Natural Hazards Management2012In: Proceeding for the Global Risk Forum, IDRC DAVOS 2012, 2012, p. 300-303Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology.
    A tentative framework for sustainable management of natural risks2012In: Proceedings of the 4th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management in a Changing World - Pathways to a Resilient Society, IDRC Davos 2012 / [ed] M. Stal, W. Ammann, M. Stiffler, Global Risk Forum (GRF) , 2012, p. 300-303Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Participation and co-operation play important roles in attaining sustainable (and integrated) natural risk management. As a consequence, new management practices relating to participation are being developed and tested. However, deductive approaches to assessment and development ofparticipatory management practices are rare. Here, a newly derived deductive framework for sustainable river basin management is proposed forapplication to the adjacent field of natural risk management. The framework covers issues of values and knowledge in the planning process and making the participatory process democratic. Hopefully, the presentation of the framework at the Global Risk Forum 2012 can act as a starting point for an extended discussion of the use of the criteria as a tool for operationalizing the concept of sustainable development in the field of natural risk management.

  • 6.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    Complexity is no excuse: Introduction of a research model for turning sustainable development from theory into practice2019In: Sustainability Science, ISSN 1862-4065, E-ISSN 1862-4057, Vol. 14, no 3, p. 733-749Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    An overarching research model is introduced here that can support research for turning sustainable development (SD) from theory into practice. The model describes how existing and future theories, and empirical knowledge related to SD can be utilised to establish explicit linkages—steps—between fundamental SD principles and specific studied practices. The research model is intended to support planning, design and communication of a range of research endeavours such as individual studies, larger projects and research programmes. It internalises a number of insights from the current stock of SD literature such as explicitly linking local solutions to general SD principles, the need to embrace complexity and to use theory, the need for interdisciplinarity, and acknowledging SD as both substance and process. The model and its utilisation are explained and illustrated here by reference to a research example from river basin planning. The model is a critical and constructive attempt to establish structure and strategy in relation to the overwhelming complexity of the sustainability challenge—a challenge which urgently calls for reflective and effective research approaches.

  • 7.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    Criteria for Sustainable Land Use Planning – analogies from the fields of regional water resources and flood risk management.2012In: Proceeding for the 43rd ESReDA seminar: Land Use Planning and Risk-Informed Decision Making, 2012Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology.
    Criteria for the assessment of planning processes for sustainable river basin management: Illustration by two cases: The EU water framework directive and ongoing water planning processes in Sweden2008In: Adaptive and Integrated Water Management: Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty, Berlin: Springer , 2008, p. 405-422Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper examines a set of criteria for processes that aim to attain sustainable river basin planning at the regional scale. The criteria answer to the lack of deductive methodologies for the assessment and development of participatory approaches to water planning. They are derived from the two concepts and sustainability principles participation and integration. The criteria are here explained and their use is illustrated by presentation of the results and conclusions from two case studies. The first case concerns an assessment of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). — In what ways does the WFD support or obstruct processes for sustainable water management? The second case concerns the ongoing planning processes in Sweden that follow from the implementation of the WFD. The cases show that the criteria work well in achieving their purpose as their use resulted in practicable proposals for taking the studied planning objects closer to meeting the criteria.

  • 9.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology.
    Criteria for the Assessment of Processes for Sustainable River Basin Management and their Congruence with the EU Water Framework Directive2008In: European Environment, ISSN 0961-0405, E-ISSN 1099-0976, Vol. 18, p. 228-242Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In order to manage the increasing pressure on the world's water resources, new planning methodologies/processes for sustainable river basin management are currently being developed. For such processes to work well, however, the legal context must allow, or support, such processes. In this study, a set of criteria relating to methodologies/processes for sustainable water management is used to assess the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The study suggests that the WFD erects few formal barriers to good planning practices. However, planning processes will need to be adapted to compensate for the weak legal support in a number of important areas, namely the use of knowledge from beyond the natural sciences, the use of methodologies for the explicit handling of values and the use of procedures for democratic participation. In so doing the issues identified here provide a basis for systematic thinking about how to design the necessary planning processes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

  • 10.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science.
    Criteria for the Assessment of Sustainable Water Management2007In: Environmental Management, ISSN 0364-152X, E-ISSN 1432-1009, Vol. 39, no 2, p. 151-163Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Pressure on the world’s water resources is increasing, restraining social and economic development in many countries, and threatening ecological values in others. In order to manage water resources in a more sustainable manner, new planning methodologies/processes for river basin management need to be developed. This study attempts to construct a set of useable normative criteria for the analysis and evaluation of such processes. The criteria were designed as a response to the lack of deductive approaches in the evaluation of methodologies and working procedures used in the context of river basin management, making it possible to highlight their potential for sustainable development. The criteria are based on the twin concepts of participation and integration. These concepts function as well-established dimensions of both sustainable development and sustainable river basin management, and they are of significant methodological relevance. A synthesis of the key aspects connected to the two concepts is undertaken, based on a broad literature review. Focus is laid on how in methodological terms, and in relation to regional water management, to achieve participation and integration in a decision-making or planning process. The criteria are concerned with how knowledge and values are integrated into the planning process and how commitment, legitimacy, or acceptance for the resulting plan is generated.

  • 11.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences.
    Further development of a sustainable procedure framework for strategic natural resources and disaster risk management2015In: Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, ISSN 1939-0459, E-ISSN 1939-0467, Vol. 7, no 4, p. 247-266Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A sustainable procedure can be described as a political conversation about desirable futures informed by scientific knowledge from a broad range of disciplines that are effectively integrated, and by the knowledge and perspectives of the concerned actors. A theoretical framework that defines what an integrated and participatory procedure implies has been successfully applied in the fields of strategic natural resources and disaster risk management (NRM and DRM). With a focus already on disciplinary integration, value integration, participation and democracy, the framework is here developed further with respect to organizational issues, such as coordination and collaboration among organizations of different types at different scales and with different mandates and incentives. The study thus establishes a new integrated approach to systematized scientific knowledge in relation to the concept of sustainable development, via the sustainability principles of integration and participation – a theoretical baseline for the trans-disciplinary development of sustainable NRM and DRM procedures.

  • 12.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology.
    Planning for Sustainable Use of Water2008Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    The basic problem that this work wishes to address concerns the  unsustainable use of water resources in many places of the world. In some places, the problem leads to human suffering and death while also obstructing social and economic development. In other places, where the consequences are less severe, natural environments are seriously damaged. A significant part of the solution to this problem lies in the planning and decision-making domain. The overall aim of this thesis is therefore to contribute to the available knowledge on planning and management for the sustainable use of water resources. Planning as a process is in focus, both in itself and in the organisational and legal contexts that affect how planning processes are performed.

     

    The main methodological approach used, and the theoretical contribution made here, is the deriving and discussion of a set of deductive criteria for the development and assessment of planning processes for the sustainable use of water resources (Papers III and IV). The criteria were derived using a multi-disciplinary approach, where the relevant literature on how to transform the concepts of ‘integration’ and ‘participation’ – both key principles for sustainable development in relation to planning – into an analytical framework of twelve criteria, was reviewed and synthesised. The derived criteria concern issues such as, how to integrate knowledge and values into the planning process and how to generate commitment, legitimacy or acceptance for the resulting plan, by democratic means. The criteria are then used to assess the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) – an extensive legal framework which will steer water planning in the EU Member States for several decades to come – and to assess the planning processes that follows on from WFD implementation in Sweden.

     

    The analysis contained in (Paper V) showed that the WFD erects few formal barriers to good planning practices. The analysis also showed however, that the planning processes that follow on from its implementation will need to be adapted to compensate for the weak legal support in a number of important areas, namely, the use of knowledge from beyond the natural sciences, the use of methodologies for the explicit handling of values and the use of procedures for democratic participation. Several recommendations are also made in respect of how the WFD could be supplemented in order for it to become a stronger support in planning processes for the sustainable use of water.

     

    The analysis of the ongoing water planning processes in Sweden (Paper VI) showed that knowledge of how to work with values and how to create forms and methods of participation and collaboration remain clearly underdeveloped. In consequence, the main objectives behind participation – the provision of knowledge and perspectives for the process and the creation of legitimacy, acceptance or engagement – are actually at risk. Recommendations include complementing the existing knowledge base with insights from the social sciences and the humanities, to create well informed learning systems within the new water administration and to make use of alternative methods for the handling of values.

     

    In addition to this, two papers from the thesis (Papers I and II) concern the situation pertaining before WFD implementation in Sweden. By comparing the system for municipal land and water planning (the former main system for long-term water planning in Sweden) with WFD prescriptions, and with the organisation of the new water administration bodies, some potential implications of WFD implementation were identified. From here it followed, that the development of forms of co-operation between the concerned administrative organisations, and in respect of the democratic involvement of the public and other concerned actors, were crucial in creating an integrative, effective and democratic system for water planning in Sweden.

     

    The thesis also illustrates the use of a tentative model for the operationalisation of ‘sustainable development’. The tentative model is described in the thesis, and it constitutes the methodological baseline for the thesis, since five of the papers contained herein use various approaches related to this model.

  • 13.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Division for Engineering Sciences, Physics and Mathematics, Karlstad University.
    Potential Implications of the EU Water Framework Directive in Sweden: A Comparison of the Swedish municipalities' Current Water Planning Regime with the Requirements of the EU's New Water Framework Directive2005In: European Journal of Spatial Development, ISSN 1650-9544, E-ISSN 1650-9544, Vol. May, no 14Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is currently being implemented throughout Europe. As the Directive is likely to introduce major changes to the way in which water is managed in Sweden, this study aims to highlight some of the potential implications of its implementation. The requests of the WFD are compared with the current Swedish municipal system for water planning. Both organisationally and in terms of actual content the current study highlights significant differences in both approach and outcomes. The organisational changes envisaged will bring about a situation where, in essence, two parallel water management planning systems exist. This however implies that there will be significant problems ahead in terms of accountability and legitimacy, as the formal relationship between these separate systems is not clear, while thenew system lacks clear linkages to the representative democratic model. The identified differences in terms of content however imply a more effective approach to water management and the potential for a more informed planning process. In order to make this arrangement work, forms of effective co-operation between the municipalities and the Water Authorities, as well as for the involvement of the general public and other concerned interests, need to be developed.

  • 14.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences.
    The EU floods directive in Sweden: Opportunities for integrated and participatory flood risk planning2017In: Journal of Flood Risk Management, ISSN 1753-318X, E-ISSN 1753-318X, Vol. 10, no 2, p. 226-237Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study analyses the implementation of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden. The question here centres on the possibilities promoted by the directive for sustainable flood risk management, with an emphasis on integrated and participatory management forms. Key persons are interviewed, using a set of criteria for sustainable river basin management as a theoretical framework. The study shows that work in this area is guided by a wide array of values, and that the involved experts provide a broad knowledge basis for this work. The need for better coordination between authorities, pieces of legislation and policy fields however remains critical while the merits of participatory planning approaches are not yet sufficiently utilised. One of the primary tasks here is to develop a shared understanding of the formal context and roles of the process while also developing forms for effective collaboration both within the new administration and between the administration and other key actors, most importantly the municipalities. The case of Sweden can provide useful insights into this process for other member states.

  • 15.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    The EU Floods Directive trickling down: Tracing the ideas of integrated and participatory flood risk management in Sweden2017In: Water Policy, ISSN 1366-7017, E-ISSN 1996-9759, Vol. 19, no 2, p. 286-303Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study examines how the EU Floods Directive - an extensive and innovative legislative instrument for integrated and participatory flood risk planning in all EU member states - influences local flood risk management in one member state, Sweden. The study identifies that: many municipalities have received new knowledge; crosssectoral organisational structures for water and flood risk issues at the local level are being formed or strengthened; and the flood risk issue has been elevated up the political agenda. There are also however clear signs that a number of other fundamental issues are not being adequately addressed in the complex institutional setting that results from the directive's implementation. These issues are undoubtedly obstructing the development of a more integrated and participatory flood risk management system. Of key importance here are questions relating to how roles and mandates are communicated and adopted, the lack of coordination between the Floods Directive and the Water Framework Directive, and the inadequate involvement of the municipal level and other stakeholders. Practical recommendations on how to redirect development towards more positive outcomes in these areas are thus formulated.

  • 16.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Centre for Climate and Safety (from 2013).
    The Sustainable Procedure Framework for Disaster Risk Management: Illustrated by the Case of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden2016In: International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, ISSN 2095-0055, Vol. 7, no 2, p. 151-162Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    How can the concrete meaning of the ambiguous and theoretical concept of sustainable development (SD) be defined and implemented, without losing sight of its fundamental principles? This study introduces a theoretical framework that supports studies of SD implementation in the context of strategic disaster risk management, by defining what SD implies with regard to planning procedures. The framework is based on the procedural SD principles of participation and integration. It was originally developed for, and has shown great value in, the field of water resource management. In-depth interviews with senior risk management researchers indicate that the framework is also applicable to and valuable for disaster risk management studies. To illustrate the application of the framework, a study of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden is summarized with the framework as the basis for the analysis.

  • 17.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    et al.
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013). Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Centre for Climate and Safety (from 2013).
    Evers, Mariele
    Bonn University, Germany.
    Alkan-Olsson, Johanna
    Lund University, Sweden.
    Jonsson, Anna
    Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Sweden.
    Participatory modelling for sustainable development: Key issues derived from five cases of natural resource and disaster risk management2017In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 76, p. 185-196Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Stakeholder participation is considered a key principle for sustainable development in the context of natural resource and disaster risk management. Participatory modelling (PM) is an interactive and iterative process in which stakeholder involvement is supported by modelling and communication tools. Planning and decision making for sustainable development (SD)integrate three substantive dimensions social, ecological and economic. The procedural dimension of SD, however, is equally important, and here we see great potential for PM. In this study, we evaluate five PM research projects against criteria for the procedural dimension of SD. This provides a basis for identifying key issues and needs for further research into PM for SD. While the cases show great potential, especially for supporting knowledge integration, learning and transparent handling of values and perspectives, they indicate a particular need to develop PM in respect of organizational integration. This issue is closely connected to the possibility of effectively implementing PM in practice.

  • 18.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    et al.
    Division for Engineering Sciences, Physics and Mathematics, Karlstad University.
    Gustafsson, Jan-Erik
    Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, KTH.
    Swedish Water Management: A Comparison of some Municipal Master Plans and the Requests of the Water Framework Directive2003In: Vatten, ISSN 0042-2886, Vol. 59, no 2, p. 75-80Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    A selection of 14 Swedish municipal master plans have been compared with the requirements of future river basin plans, as prescribed in the Water Framework Directive. The municipal master plans can be considered as the main planning documents to provide guidance for decision-making on water use in Sweden. Thus, they represent the long-term plans for water use. The comparison gives a hint on what effect the implementation of the Water Framework Directive will have on the Swedish water management system.The result shows that most of the prescribed contents of the river basin plan are covered very briefly, or not covered at all, in the master plans. Economic analysis, environmental goals and monitoring are issues that are covered in a highly defective way, compared to what is prescribed for the future river basin plans. Only the identification of protected areas are covered to a high extent. The conclusion is that implementation of the Water Framework Directive will not only change the form of administration and management of water resources in Sweden. Many new aspects concerning the substance and content of water management must also be considered in the future.

  • 19.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    et al.
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköpings universitet.
    Examining the benefits of collaboration: the Provider-User Matrix for collaborative flood risk management illustrated by the case of the Ljusnan River, Sweden2015In: Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, ISSN 1939-0459, E-ISSN 1939-0467, Vol. 1, p. 53-69Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper examines the benefits of collaboration in flood risk management by introducing a Provider-User Matrix. The matrix is illustrated through a Swedish case of polycentric decision-making. In the Swedish case the users have not yet benefited from collaboration-benefits such as a more advanced understanding of the flood response system or from sharing detailed hydrological data; benefits that should be easily implemented. The Provider-User Matrix offers both a more holistic way to study benefits and a way to start raising the efficiency of collaboration, by identifying mismatches between the benefits provided and the benefits that users need.

  • 20.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    et al.
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology.
    Lindh, Magnus
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Department of Politics and History.
    Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive: Prospects for Sustainable Water Planning in Sweden2008In: European Environment, ISSN 0961-0405, E-ISSN 1099-0976, Vol. 18, no 6, p. 327-344Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive will significantly affect the way in which water issues in Europe are managed. Here, a set of criteria for processes for sustainable river basin planning is used as a basis for analysing how the responsible planners in one EU member state – Sweden – carry out the work prescribed by the WFD. The paper is based on 13 interviews with water planners and directors. The current processes represent progress in relation to the situation pertaining before implementation; e.g., participation and collaboration are increasingly becoming pivotal, knowledge of the natural water state is increasing and the economy of water is emerging as a new and important issue. The interviews do however show that knowledge of how to work with values and how to create forms and methods of participation and collaboration remain clearly underdeveloped. In consequence, the main objectives behind participation – the provision of knowledge and perspectives for the process and the creation of legitimacy, acceptance or engagement – are actually at risk. Recommendations include complementing the existing knowledge base with insights from the social sciences and the humanities, to create well informed learning systems within the new water administration and to make use of alternative methods for the handling of values. The Swedish case may provide useful insights for other member states. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

  • 21.
    Jager, Nicolas W.
    et al.
    Univ Luneburg, Res Grp Governance Participat & Sustainabil, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Challies, Edward
    Univ Luneburg, Res Grp Governance Participat & Sustainabil, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Kochskaemper, Elisa
    Univ Luneburg, Res Grp Governance Participat & Sustainabil, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Newig, Jens
    Univ Luneburg, Res Grp Governance Participat & Sustainabil, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Benson, David
    Univ Exeter, Environm & Sustainabil Inst, Penryn TR10 9FE, Cornwall, England..
    Blackstock, Kirsty
    James Hutton Inst, Social Econ & Geog Sci Grp, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland..
    Collins, Kevin
    Open Univ, Appl Syst Thinking Practice Res Grp, Engn & Innovat Dept, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, Bucks, England..
    Ernst, Anna
    Forschungszentrum Julich, Inst Energy & Climate Res Syst Anal & Technol, D-52425 Julich, Germany..
    Evers, Mariele
    Univ Bonn, Inst Geog, D-53113 Bonn, Germany..
    Feichtinger, Judith
    CSI, A-1150 Vienna, Austria..
    Fritsch, Oliver
    Univ Leeds, Sch Geog & Water Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England..
    Gooch, Geoffrey
    DelPar Environm, S-58752 Linkoping, Sweden..
    Grund, Wiebke
    Univ Luneburg, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Centre for Climate and Safety (from 2013).
    Hernandez-Mora, Nuria
    Univ Seville, Dept Geog Humana, Seville 41004, Spain..
    Hueesker, Frank
    TU Kaiserslautern, Fachgebiet Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany..
    Huitema, Dave
    Open Univ Netherlands, Fac Management Sci & Technol, NL-6419 AT Heerlen, Netherlands.;Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Inst Environm Studies IVM, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands..
    Irvine, Kenneth
    Univ Dublin, Trinity Coll, Sch Nat Sci, Dublin 2, Ireland.;UNESCO Inst Water Educ, NL-2611 AX Delft, Netherlands..
    Klinke, Andreas
    Mem Univ Newfoundland, Environm Policy Inst, Corner Brook, NF A2H 5G4, Canada..
    Lange, Leonie
    Univ Luneburg, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany..
    Loupsans, Delphine
    French Natl Agcy Water & Aquat Environm, ONEMA, F-94300 Vincennes, France..
    Lubell, Mark
    Univ Calif Davis, Dept Environm Sci & Policy, Davis, CA 95616 USA..
    Maganda, Carmen
    AC INECOL, Inst Ecol, Xalapa Enriquez 91070, Ver, Mexico..
    Matczak, Piotr
    Adam Mickiewicz Univ, Inst Sociol, PL-61712 Poznan, Poland..
    Pares, Marc
    Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Inst Govern &Polit Publ, Bellaterra 08193, Spain..
    Saarikoski, Heli
    Environm Policy Ctr, Finnish Environm Inst, POB 140, Helsinki 00251, Finland..
    Slavikova, Lenka
    Univ Jana Evangelisty Purkyne & Usti nad Labem, IEEP, Usti Nad Labem Mesto 40096, Czech Republic..
    van der Arend, Sonja
    SenF Serious Fict, NL-6703 AP Wageningen, Netherlands..
    von Korff, Yorck
    Flow Ing, F-34980 Montferrier Sur Lez, France..
    Transforming European Water Governance?: Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States2016In: Water, ISSN 2073-4441, E-ISSN 2073-4441, Vol. 8, no 4, article id 156Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000-2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.

  • 22.
    Jordan, Rebecca
    et al.
    Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
    Gray, Steven
    Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
    Zellner, Moira
    Department of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
    Glynn, Pierre D.
    Water Mission Area, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
    Voinov, Alexey
    Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    Sterling, Eleanor J.
    Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.
    Leong, Kirsten
    NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.
    Olabisi, Laura Schmitt
    Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
    Hubacek, Klaus
    Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA , Department of Environmental Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
    Bommel, Pierre
    Green Research Unit, CIRAD, Montpellier, France & CIEDA, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.
    BenDor, Todd K.
    Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
    Jetter, Antonie J.
    Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.
    Laursen, Bethany
    Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA & Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
    Singer, Alison
    Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
    Giabbanelli, Philippe J.
    Computer Science Department, Furman University, Greenville, SC, USA.
    Kolagani, Nagesh
    Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIIT Chittoor, Sri City, India.
    Carrera, Laura Basco
    Unit Water Resource and Delta Management, Deltares, MH Delft, The Netherlands.
    Jenni, Karen
    Science and Decisions Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USA.
    Prell, Christina
    Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
    Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community2018In: Earth's Future, ISSN 1384-5160, E-ISSN 2328-4277, Vol. 6, no 8, p. 1046-1057Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

  • 23. Noren, Viveca
    et al.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    Nyberg, Lars
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    Bishop, Kevin
    Flood risk assessment: Practices in flood prone Swedish municipalities2016In: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, E-ISSN 2212-4209, Vol. 18, p. 206-217Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Risk assessments are important to ensure efficient and effective flood risk management. Methods and strategies for flood risk assessment are described in the literature, but less is known about how assessments are actually performed. We have studied local flood risk assessments in Sweden by interviewing flood risk managers in municipalities and analyzing documentation of flood risk assessment efforts. There is a large variation between municipalities in how flood risk assessment has been done. The efforts made in association with the EU Floods Directive together with a Government Commission about a flood in Lake Malaren are the most advanced assessments. Only a few of the municipalities have done comparable assessments. Generally, however, there is a lack of experience and theoretical knowledge about concepts and methods of flood risk assessment in the municipalities. In the assessments studied, the flood itself had been rather well defined in hazard maps. The consequences of a flood had been studied in the larger projects but only by half of the municipalities. It is mainly direct, tangible consequences that have been included. It is mainly the exposure of assets that has been investigated while little attention has been paid to vulnerability. To improve flood risk assessment in Sweden there is a need for knowledge and resources in the municipalities. Prioritization and motivation are needed to actually perform the assessments. National guidelines for may be helpful to guide municipalities in this work and to have more uniform risk assessment. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  • 24.
    Norén, Viveca
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Environmental and Life Sciences (from 2013).
    Bishop, Kevin
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden.
    Drinking water risk assessment in practice: the case of Swedish drinking water producers at risk from floods2016In: Environment Systems and Decisions, ISSN 2194-5403, E-ISSN 2194-5411, Vol. 36, no 3, p. 239-252Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    To achieve a safe and reliable drinking water supply, water producers need to manage a large range of risks regarding both water quality and quantity. A risk management approach where risks are systematically identified and handled in a preventive manner is promoted by the World Health Organization and supported by researchers and drinking water experts worldwide. Risk assessment is an important part of such a management approach, and a variety of tools for risk assessment are described in the literature. There is, however, little knowledge of how drinking water risk assessment is performed in practice, including which tools that are actually used. This study investigates the use of risk assessment tools, and the approach to risk management, on a local level in the Swedish water sector. It is based on interviews with key persons from a targeted selection of water producers. We find that the application of tools as well as the approach to risk assessment and management differs considerably between the water producers. The tools most frequently used are mainly the ones promoted or required by Swedish national organizations. Although many of the water producers have done some kind of risk assessment, most have not implemented a risk management approach. Furthermore, their knowledge of the concepts of risk and risk management is often limited. The largest challenge identified is to prioritize risk assessment, so that it is actually performed and then used as a basis for managing risk in a systematic way.

  • 25.
    Svedung, Inge
    et al.
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    Evers, Mariele
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    Nyberg, Lars
    Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Centre for Climate and Safety.
    A socio-physical systems perspective on Land Use Planning: Mapping preconditions and planning process as a base for discussion2012Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 26.
    Svensson, Torbjörn
    et al.
    Karlstad University.
    Andersson, Jan-Olov
    Karlstad University.
    Blumenthal, Barbara
    Karlstad University.
    Forsberg, Jan
    Karlstad University.
    Hedelin, Beatrice
    Karlstad University.
    Projekt Byälven: Översvämningsrisker, förebyggande åtgärder och konsekvenser2002Report (Other academic)
1 - 26 of 26
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf