Knowledge-based management of protected areas and hydropower: the case of Norway

  • Kristin RosendalEmail author
  • Jon Birger Skjærseth
  • Steinar Andresen
Original Paper


How has ecological knowledge been applied in Norwegian management of hydropower and protected areas? By recognizing a diversity of environmental ‘knowledges’ and science as potentially subordinated to political and economic interests, we explain the link between ecological knowledge and management by the state and scale of knowledge, political conflict and international commitments. The analysis is guided by case-study methodology. We find that ecological knowledge has had weak impact in the management reform of protected areas and been reduced as a decision-making premise in hydropower management. Differing combinations of case-specific factors have produced these outcomes. In the case of protected areas, ecological knowledge was suppressed mainly by opposing economic interests. The hydropower case showed how competing environmental knowledge and international commitments related to renewable energy and climate change overshadowed nature management concerns. These observations highlight the importance of differentiating between types of environmental knowledge and between knowledge and interests in the study of nature management.


Science policy Nature management International commitments Water resource management Environmental knowledge Renewable energy 



Funding was provided by Norges Forskningsråd (Project No. 230374).


  1. Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. C. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African Cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33(Summer), 473–502.Google Scholar
  2. Andresen, S., & Rosendal, G. K. (2017). The panel on climate change and the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. ASJP African and Francophone Air and Space Power Journal, 8(2), 45–61.Google Scholar
  3. Andresen, S., Rosendal, G. K., & Skjærseth, J. B. (2017). Designing knowledge-based, integrated management systems for environmental governance. In Ariel Dinar (Ed.), Natural resources and environmental policy in the era of global change (pp. 439–456). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, S., Morse, S., & Shah, R. A. (2012). Understanding stakeholder participation in research as part of sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management, 101, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biermann, F., et al. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environment Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjørnes, T., & Lafferty, W. (2000). Miljøvernlederstillinger og Lokal Agenda 21. Hva er status? Report 1/2000, SUM, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  7. Buan, I. F., Eikeland, P. O., & Inderberg, T. H. (2010). Rammebetingelser for utbygging av fornybar energi i Norge, Sverige og Skottland: Sammenligning av faktorer som motiverer og modererer investeringer ‘Framework Conditions for Development of Renewable Energy in Norway, Sweden and Scotland: Comparison of Factors that Motivate and Moderate Investments), In Norwegian, FNI Report 6/2010, Lysaker: FNI.Google Scholar
  8. Chong, J. (2014). Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation: Progress and challenges. International Environment Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DN (Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management). (2008). Lokal forvaltning av verneområder. En evaluering av delegering, Tilrådning til Miljøverndepartementet. Trondheim: DN.Google Scholar
  10. Dooley, K. (2018). Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. International Environment Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EC. (2008). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. European Communities/Wesseling: Welzel and Hardt.Google Scholar
  12. Eikeland, P. O & Schei, P. J. (2019). Use of research-based ecological knowledge in national resource management: The case of Norwegian hydropower management. FNI report, forthcoming 2019. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Falleth, E.I. & Hovik, S. (2008). Lokal forvaltning av store verneområder. Tidsskrift for utmarksforskning 1.
  14. FAO. (2009). State of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  15. Fauchald, O. K., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2012). The Norwegian reform of protected area management: A grand experiment with delegation of authority? Local Environment, 17(2), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fauchald, O. K. & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (forthcoming 2019). Reforming protected area management in Norway: What role for knowledge? Working paper, Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Fauchald, O. K., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Zachrisson, A. (2014). Internationalization of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(3), 240–252. Scholar
  18. GEO. (2012). Global environmental outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
  19. Gillom, S. (2014). Science in carbon economies: debating what counts in US biofuel governance. Environment and Planning A, 46(2), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haas, P. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Innst. O. nr. 64, 1995–1996. The Norwegian Parliament. Oslo, energi- og miljøkomiteen, den 29. mai 1996.Google Scholar
  23. IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014. Synthesis Report. WHO/UNEP. Accessed December 01, 2017.
  24. IUCN (2011). Guidelines for protected areas legislation, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 81. IUCN Publication service: Gland.Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Josefsson, H. (2015). Good Ecological StatusAdvancing the Ecology of Law, Dissertation University of Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  27. Karr, J., & Dudley, D. (1981). Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management, 5(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. L’Abée-Lund, J.H. & J.O. Villar, (2017). Start-stop practice in small Norwegian hydropower plants, NVE Report 9/17, Oslo: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.Google Scholar
  29. Lane, M. (2001). Affirming new directions in planning theory: Co-management of protected areas. Society and Natural Resources, 14(8), 657–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., & Cash, D. W. (2006). Information and influence. In R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, & N. M. Dickson (Eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NEA, Norwegian Environment Agency. (2012). Miljø—vassdragsregulering (the State of the environment),
  35. Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. (2015). FaktaEnergi og vannressurser i Norge (FactsEnergy and water resources in Norway), Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy,
  36. Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (2009–2010). Prop. 1 S (2009–2010). Oslo: Det kongelige miljøverndepartement.Google Scholar
  37. Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration. (1993). Inngrep i vassdrag; konsekvenser og tiltaken kunnskapsoppsummering. Publ. nr. 13/1993. Oslo: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration.Google Scholar
  38. Palmer, J. (2014). Biofuels and the politics of land-use change: tracing the interactions of discourse and place in European policy-making. Environment and Planning A, 46(2), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reed, S. M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Riseth, J. A. (2006). An indigenous perspective on national parks and Sami reindeer management in Norway. Geographical Research, 45(2), 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosendal, G. K. (2004). Biodiversity: international bungee jump—domestic bungle. In J. B. Skjærseth (Ed.), International Regimes and Norway’s Environmental Policy: Crossfire and Coherence (pp. 161–194). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Rosendal, G. K. (2007). Norway in UN environmental policies: Ambitions and influence. Journal of International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7, 439–455. Special Issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skjærseth, J. B. (2004). International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, S. R., & Ingram, H. (2002). Policy tools and democracy. In Lester Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 565–584). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stauffer, R.B (1957). Haeckel, Darwin, and ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology, 32 (2), 138–144
  46. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Geneva: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson Hobbs, N. (2003). Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales, Forest Ecology and Management, 3 August, 223–238.Google Scholar
  48. Underdal, A. (2000). Science and politics: The anatomy of an uneasy partnership. In S. Andresen, T. Skodvin, A. Underdal, & J. Wettestad (Eds.), Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Underdal, A. (2010). Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 386–393. Scholar
  50. Underdal, A., & Hanf, K. (Eds.). (2000). International environmental agreements and domestic politics: The case of acid rain. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  51. UNEP. (2009). The natural fix: The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. Cambridge: UNEP.Google Scholar
  52. Verissimo, D., MacMillan, D. C., Smith, R. J., Crees, J., & Davies, Z. (2014). Has climate change taken prominence over biodiversity conservation? BioScience Talks, 64(7), 625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallbott, L., & Rosendal, G. K. (2018). Safeguards, standards, and the science-policy interfaces of REDD+: Greening land use through forest-based mitigation in Costa Rica? Journal of Environment and Development, 12(1), 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White Paper. (2006–2007). Regjeringens miljøpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. St.meld. 26. Miljøverndepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
  55. White Paper. (2013). Naturens goder—om verdier av økosystemtjenester (Nature’s benefits—on the value of ecosystem services). NOU 2013:10, Miljøverndepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
  56. White Paper. (2015–2020). Natur for livet. (Nature for life). Meld. St. 14. Klima og miljødepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
  57. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations