Examining the benefits of collaboration: the Provider-User Matrix for collaborative flood risk management illustrated by the case of the Ljusnan River, Sweden

References

• Agger, A., & Lofgren, K. (2008). Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes. Planning Theory, 7, 145–164. doi:10.1177/1473095208090432
   Google Scholar
• Andonova, L B., Betsill, M M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 52–73. doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory, 18, 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032
   Google Scholar
• Bryan, T. A. (2004). Tragedy averted: The promise of collaboration. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 881–896. doi:10.1080/08941920490505284
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. T., Koontz, T. M., & Bonnell, J. E. (2011). Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of best management practices in two watersheds. Society & Natural Resources, 24, 1127–1141. doi:10.1080/08941920.2010.512358
   Google Scholar
• Conley, A., & Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371–386. doi:10.1080/08941920309181
   Google Scholar
• EU. (2000). Directive of the European parliament and of the council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC). Official Journal, L327.
   Google Scholar
• EU. (2007). Directive of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/EC). Official Journal, L288.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, S. D., & Koontz, T. M. (2009). Rules for collaboration: Institutional analysis of group membership and levels of action in watershed partnerships. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 393–414. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00320.x
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmenting societies. London: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hedelin, B. (2005). Potential implications of the EU water framework directive in Sweden. European Journal of Spatial Development, 14.
   Google Scholar
• Hedelin, B. (2007). Criteria for the assessment of sustainable water management. Environmental Management, 39, 151–163. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0387-0
   Google Scholar
• Koontz, T. M. (2005). We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 459–481. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00125.x
   Google Scholar
• Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66, 111–121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur. [In Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Leach, W. D. (2002). Surveying diverse stakeholder groups. Society & Natural Resources, 15, 641–649. doi:10.1080/08941920290069245
   Google Scholar
• Leach, W. D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127, 378–385. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:6(378)
   Google Scholar
• Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 645–670. doi:10.1002/pam.10079
   Google Scholar
• Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. (2005). Are trust and social capital the keys to success? Watershed partnerships in California and Washington. In P. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 231–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Lubell, M. (2005). Do watershed partnerships enhance beliefs conducive to collective action? In P. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 201–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, L. (2004). Integrating Swedish water resource management: A multi-level governance trilemma. Local Esnvironment, 9, 413–424. doi:10.1080/1354983042000255324
   Google Scholar
• Margerum, R. D. (1999). Profile: Integrated environmental management: The foundations for successful practice. Environmental Management, 24, 151–166. doi:10.1007/s002679900223
   Google Scholar
• Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaborative planning and management. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M., & Orvig, A. S. (2007). Dialogue in focus groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Montin, S. (2000). Between fragmentation and co-ordination: The changing role of local government in Sweden. Public Management, 2(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/146166700360136
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pagdee, A., Kim, Y-S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society & Natural Resources, 19(1), 33–52. doi:10.1080/08941920500323260
   Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12, 5.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D., & Pielke Jr, R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5–16. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
   Google Scholar
• Schuett, M. A., Selin, S. W., & Carr, D. S. (2001). Making it work: Keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. Environmental Management, 27, 587–593. doi:10.1007/s002670010172
   Google Scholar
• SFS. (2004). Ordinance on water quality administration (2004:660). Stockholm: Swedish government.
   Google Scholar
• SFS. (2009). Flood risk ordinance (2009:956). Stockholm: Swedish government.
   Google Scholar
• SFS. (2010). Planning and building act (2010:900). Stockholm: Swedish government.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Storbjörk, S., & Hjerpe, M. (2014). Sometimes climate adaptation is politically correct: A case study of planners and politicians negotiating climate adaptation in waterfront spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 22(11), 2268–2286. doi:10.1080/09654313.2013.830697
   Google Scholar
• Thorsteinsson, D., Semadeni-Davies, A. S., & Larsson, R. (2007). Planning for river induced floods in urban areas: Experiences and key issues for Sweden. Flood Risk Management in Europe, 25, 485–503. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4200-3_25
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E. P. (2003). Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar