| dc.contributor.author |
Lundmark, Carina |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Matti, Simon |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2015-07-08T16:10:52Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2015-07-08T16:10:52Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2015 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/9766 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
"A new structure for decision-making in relation to management of large carnivores is presently being implemented in Sweden through a system of regional Wildlife Management Delegations (WMD). The governing idea is that strengthened regional influence will increase the legitimacy of both the management system and its outcomes. We use this institutional change as a backdrop for analyzing the possibilities to apply deliberative practices to reduce conflict and enhance legitimacy in the management of natural resources. We argue that structures alone do not determine the prospects of deliberative arrangements; the political context (i.e. the characteristics and relationships among participating actors) is equally important. An analytical framework is proposed that merges structural prospects for deliberation in co-management with stakeholder features, capturing the interests and beliefs of the actors involved. We illustrate the application of this framework by analysing original data from three Wildlife Management Delegations. Our findings show that there are significant differences in the beliefs among the actors within the system. Based on similarities in their beliefs, they can potentially form a relatively strong anti-carnivore/pro-WMD-coalition, opposing the pro-carnivore/anti-WMD-beliefs of the nature conservation interest. Furthermore, the structure is designed to meet vital deliberative criteria, yet we point at substantial differences between statutory and effective representation that, as it coincides with diverging beliefs, can affect decision-making. One qualitative criterion for successful deliberation stands out in our study — reasoned debate. The prospects for deliberation in WMDs to reduce conflict levels among opposing interests seem to depend on the capacity for ensuring exchange of reasonable and informed arguments." |
en_US |
| dc.language |
English |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
wildlife |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Exploring the Prospects for Deliberative Practices as a Conflict-Reducing and Legitimacy-Enhancing Tool: The Case of Swedish Carnivore Management |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
published |
en_US |
| dc.type.methodology |
Case Study |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.region |
Europe |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.country |
Sweden |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Wildlife |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationjournal |
Wildlife Biology |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationvolume |
21 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationpages |
147-156 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationnumber |
3 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationmonth |
May |
en_US |