Change search
Refine search result
1 - 12 of 12
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.
    Dieperink, Carel
    et al.
    Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance.
    Mees, Hannelore
    Antwerp University, Research Group Environment and Society.
    Priest, Sally J.
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    Ek, Kristina
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Bruzzone, Silvia
    Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), France.
    Larrue, Corinne
    University of Paris.
    Matczak, Piotr
    Adam Mickiewicz University, Institute of Sociology.
    Managing urban flood resilience as a multilevel governance challenge: an analysis of required multilevel coordination mechanisms2018In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 23, no 1, article id 31Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In both academic literature and flood risk management practices, it is argued that governance initiatives are needed to enhance the flood resilience of urban agglomerations. Multiple levels of governance will be involved in this activity. However, thus far, the literature has hardly addressed what mechanisms are required to coordinate the different levels of managing urban flood resilience, and what factors account for these mechanisms. Our aim is to address this knowledge gap. Here, we examine six in-depth case studies undertaken in urban agglomerations in different European countries: Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Hull, UK; Geraardsbergen, Belgium; Karlstad, Sweden; Wroclaw, Poland; and Nice, France. The case studies reveal the ways in which multiple levels of governance are involved in managing urban flood resilience. Coordination among governance levels is achieved by proactive policy entrepreneurs, the use of bridging concepts, clear rules, and the provision of resources. These mechanisms seem to be universally applicable, but their characteristics appear to be highly dependent on more general institutional, economic, geographical, and cultural contextual factors.

  • 2.
    Fournier, Marie
    et al.
    Laboratoire Géomatique et Foncier, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Ecole Supérieure des Géomètres et Topographes.
    Larrue, Corinne
    Paris School of Planning, Lab'Urba, Paris Est University.
    Alexander, Meghan
    Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.
    Hegger, Dries
    Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
    Bakker, Marloes
    Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
    Pettersson, Maria
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Crabbé, Ann
    Research Group Society and Environment, University of Antwerp.
    Mees, Hannelore
    Research Group Society and Environment, University of Antwerp.
    Chorynski, Adam
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance?2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 49Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Flood mitigation is a strategy that is growing in importance across Europe. This growth corresponds with an increasing emphasis on the need to learn to live with floods and make space for water. Flood mitigation measures aim at reducing the likelihood and magnitude of flooding and complement flood defenses. They are being put in place through the implementation of actions that accommodate (rather than resist) water, such as natural flood management or adapted housing. The strategy has gained momentum over the past 20. years in an effort to improve the sustainability of flood risk management (FRM) and facilitate the diversification of FRM in the pursuit of societal resilience to flooding. Simultaneously, it is increasingly argued that adaptive forms of governance are best placed to address the uncertainty and complexity associated with social-ecological systems responding to environmental challenges, such as flooding. However, there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which current flood risk governance, and flood mitigation specifically, reflect these aspired forms of adaptive governance. Drawing from EU research into flood risk governance, conducted within the STAR-FLOOD project, we examine the governance of flood mitigation in six European countries: Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Using in-depth policy and legal analysis, as well as interviews with key actors, the governance and implementation of flood mitigation in these countries is evaluated from the normative viewpoint of whether, and to what extent, it can be characterized as adaptive governance. We identify five criteria of adaptive governance based on a comprehensive literature review and apply these to each country to determine the “distance” between current governance arrangements and adaptive governance. In conclusion, the flood mitigation strategy provides various opportunities for actors to further pursue forms of adaptive governance. The extent to which the mitigation strategy is capable of doing so varies across countries, however, and its role in stimulating adaptive governance was found to be strongest in Belgium and

  • 3.
    Gilissen, Herman Kasper
    et al.
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Alexander, Meghan
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    Matczak, Piotr
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland.
    Pettersson, Maria
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Bruzzone, Silvia
    Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), France.
    A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of Flood Emergency Management Systems in Europe2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 27Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Society is faced with a range of contemporary threats to everyday life, from natural and technological hazards to accidents and terrorism. These are embodied within integrated emergency management arrangements that are designed to enhance preparedness and response to such incidents, and in turn facilitate a prompt recovery. Such arrangements must be inherently dynamic and evolve as new threats emerge or as existing threats change. An example of the latter is the changing nature of flooding, which is projected to increase in both frequency and severity with climate change. Recognizing this evolving threat, we focus on the evaluation of the effectiveness of domestic Flood Emergency Management Systems (FEMS) as components of integrated emergency management arrangements. Despite the extensive body of literature that documents success conditions of so-called effective emergency management more broadly, there have been only a few attempts to construct a comprehensive evaluation framework to support objective assessment and cross-country comparison. Addressing this gap, we formulate an evaluation framework specifically tailored to the study of FEMS in Europe, which is then provisionally applied to the study of FEMS in England (UK), France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Important differences are observed in how FEMS have evolved in relation to differing contextual backgrounds (political, cultural, administrative, and socio-economic) and exposures to flood hazard. From this provisional assessment, a number of opportunities for, and constraints to, enhancing the effectiveness of FEMS in Europe are discerned. The evaluation framework thus serves as an important stepping stone for further indepth inquiry, and as a valuable tool for future comparative study.

  • 4.
    Goytia, Susana
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Pettersson, Maria
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Schellenberger, Thomas
    University François Rabelais, Tours.
    van Doorn-Hoekveld, Willemijn J.
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University School of Law.
    Priest, Sally J.
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    Dealing with change and uncertainty within the regulatory frameworks for flood defense infrastructure in selected European countries2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 23Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Whereas existing literature on the interactions among law, adaptive governance, and resilience in the water sector often focuses on quality or supply issues, this paper addresses adaptation in national water laws in relation to increasing flood risks. In particular, this paper analyzes the extent to which legal rules governing flood defense infrastructure in a selection of European countries (England, France, Sweden, and The Netherlands) allow for response and adaptation to change and uncertainty. Although there is evidence that the legal rules on the development of new infrastructure require that changing conditions be considered, the adaptation of existing infrastructure is a more complicated matter. Liability rules fail to adequately address damages resulting from causes external to the action or inaction of owners and managers, in particular extreme events. A trend toward clearer, and in some cases, increased public powers to ensure the safety of flood defense infrastructure is observed. The paper concludes that legal rules should ensure not only that decisions to build flood defenses are based on holistic and future-oriented assessments, but also that this is reflected in the implementation and operation of these structures.

  • 5.
    Gralepois, Mathilde
    et al.
    University François-Rabelais of Tours, France.
    Larrue, Corinne
    Paris School of Planning, Lab'Urba, Paris Est University, France.
    Wiering, Mark
    Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
    Crabbé, Ann
    University of Antwerp (Belgium).
    Tapsell, Sue
    Middlesex University, London, UK.
    Mees, Hannelore
    University of Antwerp (Belgium).
    Ek, Kristina
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Szwed, Malgorzata
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
    Is flood defense changing in nature?: Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 37Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In many countries, flood defense has historically formed the core of flood risk management but this strategy is now evolving with the changing approach to risk management. This paper focuses on the neglected analysis of institutional changes within the flood defense strategies formulated and implemented in six European countries (Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden). The evolutions within the defense strategy over the last 30 years have been analyzed with the help of three mainstream institutional theories: a policy dynamics-oriented framework, a structure-oriented institutional theory on path dependency, and a policy actors-oriented analysis called the advocacy coalitions framework. We characterize the stability and evolution of the trends that affect the defense strategy in the six countries through four dimensions of a policy arrangement approach: actors, rules, resources, and discourses. We ask whether the strategy itself is changing radically, i.e., toward a discontinuous situation, and whether the processes of change are more incremental or radical. Our findings indicate that in the European countries studied, the position of defense strategy is continuous, as the classical role of flood defense remains dominant. With changing approaches to risk, integrated risk management, climate change, urban growth, participation in governance, and socioeconomic challenges, the flood defense strategy is increasingly under pressure to change. However, these changes can be defined as part of an adaptation of the defense strategy rather than as a real change in the nature of flood risk management.

  • 6.
    Hegger, Dries
    et al.
    Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
    Driessen, Peter
    Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
    Wiering, Mark A.
    Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
    Van Rijswick, Marleen
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Kundzewicz, Zbigniew W.
    Institute of Agriculture and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    Matczak, Piotr
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland.
    Crabbé, Ann
    University of Antwerp, Research Group Society & Environment.
    Raadgever, G. Tom Tom
    Sweco Netherlands .
    Bakker, Marloes
    Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.
    Priest, Sally J.
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    Larrue, Corinne
    Paris School of Planning, Lab’Urba Paris Est University.
    Ek, Kristina
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 52Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of “flood resilience” into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries’ achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries’ achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies’ feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness), as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. We provide much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties, and citizens who want to increase flood resilience

  • 7.
    Jørgensen, Dolly
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Ecological restoration as objective, target, and tool in international biodiversity policy2015In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 20, no 4, article id 43Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Ecological restoration has been mainstreamed in international biodiversity policies in the last five years. I analyze statements about restoration in three international policies: the Convention for Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011-2020 and Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Convention for Biodiversity Decision XI/16 on ecosystem restoration, and the European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. I argue that restoration functions at three different levels in these policies: as an objective, as a target, and as a tool. Because restoration appears at all three levels, the policies encourage counting all restoration activity as meeting the objectives of the policy regardless of the activity’s actual effect on ecosystem services or biodiversity more broadly. Reaching a numerical target for a restored area may not necessarily support the overarching policy goals of maintaining Earth’s biodiversity and supporting ecosystem services.

  • 8.
    Jørgensen, Dolly
    et al.
    Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University.
    Renöfält, Birgitta M.
    Umeå university.
    Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don’t: Debates on Dam Removal in the Swedish Media2013In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 18, no 1, article id 18Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Dam removal is an increasingly common practice. Dams are removed for various reasons, with safety, economics, and ecosystem restoration being the most common. However, dam removals often cause controversy. Riparian land owners and local communities often have a negative view of removal, and their reasons vary. It may be the loss of recreational benefits such as swimming and boating, loss of cultural and historical context tied to the dam, or fear that removal may have a negative effect on aesthetic values. Because controversies are often picked up by local media, and media in itself is an important channel to build support around a cause, the way in which dam removals are reported and discussed in the media is likely to influence the debate. Here, we examine the ways in which proponents and opponents of dam removal frame the services provided by two contrasting ecosystems, i.e., an existing dam and the potential stream without a dam, by performing a media discourse analysis of the reasons given for removal and the reasons presented for the dam to remain in place. Our source material includes Internet-based newspaper articles and their associated public comments in four dam removal controversies in Sweden. Our analysis indicates that public opposition is not based on knowledge deficiency, where more information will lead to better ecological decision-making, as is sometimes argued in dam removal science; it is instead a case of different understandings and valuation of the environment and the functions it provides.

  • 9.
    Priest, Sally J.
    et al.
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    Suykens, Cathy
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Van Rijswick, Marleen
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Schellenberger, Thomas
    University François Rabelais.
    Goytia, Susana
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Kundzewicz, Zbigniew W.
    Institute of Agriculture and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    Van Doorn-Hoekveld, Willemijn J.
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Beyers, Jean-Christophe
    Institute for Environmental and Energy Law, KU Leuven.
    Homewood, Stephen
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
    The European union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: Lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 50Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding to undermine the European Union’s sustainable development goals, a desire to increase societal resilience to flooding has prompted the introduction of a common European Framework. We provide a legal and policy analysis of the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) in six countries: Belgium (Flemish region), England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Evaluation criteria from existing legal and policy literature frame the study of the Directive and its effect on enhancing or constraining societal resilience by using an adaptive governance approach. These criteria are initially used to analyze the key components of the EU approach, before providing insight of the implementation of the Directive at a national level. Similarities and differences in the legal translation of European goals into existing flood risk management are analyzed alongside their relative influence on policy and practice. The research highlights that the effect of the Floods Directive on increasing societal resilience has been nationally variable, in part because of its focus on procedural obligations, rather than on more substantive requirements. Analysis shows that despite a focus on transboundary river basin management, existing traditions of flood risk management have overridden objectives to harmonize flood risk management in some cases. The Directive could be strengthened by requiring more stringent cooperation and providing the competent authorities in international river basin districts with more power. Despite some shortcomings in directly affecting flood risk outcomes, the Directive has positively stimulated discussion and flood risk management planning in countries that were perhaps lagging behind

  • 10.
    Sandström, Annica
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Rova, Carl
    Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden2010In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 15, no 3Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Co-management constitutes a certain type of institutional arrangement that has gained increased attention among both policy makers and researchers involved in the field of natural resource management. Yet the concept of co-management is broad, and our knowledge about how different kinds of management structures affect the ability to deal with challenges pertinent to the commons is limited. One of these challenges is to foster an adaptive management process, i.e., a process in which rules are continuously revised and changed according to what is known about the ecological system. We aim to address the relationship between different kinds of co-management structures and adaptive management. To this end, we conducted a comparative case study of two Fishery Conservation Areas in Sweden. The concept of networks and the formal method of social network analysis are applied as theoretical and methodological devices. Building on previous research, we propose that adaptive management processes occur in co-management networks consisting of a heterogeneous set of actors that are centrally and densely integrated. Networks of this kind are believed to promote a management process in which actors with disparate perspectives and resources formulate a common view regarding the condition of the ecosystem, the basic problem to be solved, and what measures to adopt. The empirical findings support the existence of such a relationship. Nonetheless, the restricted empirical material, an inability to control for hidden variables, and a lack of success in determining causality among variables are all factors that call for more research.

  • 11.
    van Doorn-Hoekveld, Willemijn J.
    et al.
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University School of Law.
    Goytia, Susana
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Suykens, Cathy
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
    Homewood, Stephen
    Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University London.
    Thuillier, Thomas
    University François-Rabelais of Tours.
    Manson, Corinne
    University François-Rabelais of Tours.
    Chmielewski, Piotr J.
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    Matczak, Piotr
    Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences; Institute of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University.
    van Rijswick, Marleen
    Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University School of Law.
    Distributional effects of flood risk management: a cross-country comparison of preflood compensation2016In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, article id 26Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We seek to examine the manner in which either the EU member states of France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden or parts of them, such as the country of England in the UK or the Flemish Region in Belgium, deal with the distributional effects of the flood risk management strategies prevention, defense, and mitigation. Measures carried out in each of these strategies can cause preflood harm, as in the devaluation of property or loss of income. However, different member states and authorities address this harm in different ways. A descriptive overview of the different compensation regimes in the field of flood risk management is followed by an analysis of these differences and an explanation of what may cause them, such as the geographical differences that lead to differences in the way that they interfere with private rights and the dominant legal principles that underlie compensation regimes. An elaborated compensation regime could lead to more equitable and legitimate flood risk management because the burdens are fairly spread and all interests—including those of injured parties—are considered in the decision-making process. Our aim is to stimulate the hardly existent discussion on the financial harm that is caused by measures to prevent floods (preflood), in addition to the already existing discussion on the ex post flood distributional effects.

  • 12.
    Wilkinson, Catherine
    et al.
    Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
    Saarne, Toomas
    Stockholm University.
    Paterson, Garry D.
    Stockholm University.
    Colding, Johan
    Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics.
    Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept: An historical exploration2013In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 18, no 1Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study examines how ecosystem services (ES) have been taken into account historically in strategic spatial plans in Melbourne and Stockholm through a comparative case study analysis of eight strategic spatial plans from 1929-2010. We investigated the types of ES taken into account, and how human-nature relations and the valuation and trade-off discussions regarding ES were framed. An ES coding protocol was developed that categorized and identified 39 ES drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other relevant literature. Only two of the 39 ES were addressed in every plan for both cities, namely freshwater and recreation. While the number of ES referred to in plans has generally increased over time, just under a third of ES in Melbourne and Stockholm were not addressed at all. References to individual ES showed little continuity over time. This variability reveals a time-scale mismatch that has been overlooked in the ES literature with potential urban policy implications. Despite considerable variation in ES addressed across the plans, there is a striking similar pattern in the total numbers of ES addressed over time in both cities. Plans for both cities showed a spike in the late 60s/early 70s, followed by a significant decline in the late 70s/early 80s with the highest number of ES addressed in the most recent plans. Furthermore, our analysis shows that strategic spatial plans generally demonstrate awareness that urban populations are dependent on ecosystems and this framing is an important part of the policy discourse. While specific monetary values were not placed on any ES in the plans, resolution of land-use conflicts requiring tradeoffs between ES and equity of distribution of ES is a central feature of most of the examined plans. We argue that longitudinal policy document analysis represents a useful complement to any attempt to improve understanding of the implications of and opportunities for operationalizing an ES approach in urban practice

1 - 12 of 12
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