Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct 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
Arctic games: An analytical framework for identifying options for sustainable natural resource governance
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Environmental Strategies Research (fms).
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: The Polar Journal, ISSN 2154-896X, E-ISSN 2154-8978, Vol. 6, no 1Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Changes in the Arctic are fuelled by a variety of drivers, including global warming, economic growth, improved access to natural resources, technological advances and globalisation processes. Further, the region is characterised by a diverse set of international agreements, national legislations and common pool resources. This presents challenges for actors to suggest, evaluate and agree on sustainable development alternatives. We propose an analytical framework to better understand (1) the types of trade-offs associated with Arctic futures and (2) actors’ incentives for strategic behaviour. In the framework, game theory illuminates incentives and strategies among actors, cost-benefit analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services help identify socially desirable outcomes and institutional analysis provides insight on how governance structures can support or interfere with policy intervention. We apply the proposed framework by analysing possible oil development futures for Lofoten in Northern Norway. For example, institutional analysis and estimates of costs and benefits of reducing oil spill risk and their distribution among actors are used for discussing incentive structures, including the use of side payments as a mechanism to mitigate conflicting interests. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor and Francis Ltd. , 2016. Vol. 6, no 1
Keyword [en]
Cost-benefit analysis, Environmental governance, Game theory, Institutional analysis, Oil extraction, Valuation of ecosystem services
National Category
Other Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-207523DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2016.1171001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85015383047OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-207523DiVA: diva2:1103931
Note

Export Date: 22 May 2017; Article; Correspondence Address: Söderqvist, T.; Enveco Environmental Economics ConsultancySweden; email: tore@enveco.se. QC 20170531

Available from: 2017-05-31 Created: 2017-05-31 Last updated: 2017-05-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Håkansson, CeciliaNoring, M.
By organisation
Environmental Strategies Research (fms)KTH
In the same journal
The Polar Journal
Other Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 5 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct 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