Despite the attention given to genetic biodiversity in international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets, previous research points at a “conservation genetics gap,” indicating that scientific insights into genetic biodiversity are poorly integrated into practical management. Both researchers and managers call for platforms for knowledge exchange between science and practice. However, few scientific studies on the potential effects of such knowledge transfer have been conducted. The present study is a follow-up to Lundmark et al. (2017), which identified significant effects of two forms of knowledge communication on conservation managers’ concerns and beliefs in regard to Baltic Sea genetic biodiversity. This study departs from Lundmark et al. (2017) and explores (a) whether the identified alterations in knowledge and beliefs persist over time, and (b) whether potential stability differs between different types of policy beliefs as well as between two types of knowledge communication (lecture and group deliberation). The results of this follow-up study show that the positive impacts on managers’ self-assessed knowledge remained, while the effects on policy beliefs largely had vanished a few months after the knowledge communication. Thus, changes in beliefs seem perishable, suggesting that continuity is more important than the form of educational efforts.

The aim of this study is to examine the transformative capacity of top-down imposed collaborative institutions on participants’ beliefs and coordination patterns. First, do collaborative arenas enhance learning in terms of belief change and belief convergence among participating actors? Second, what types of beliefs are changed and, third, how are changes in beliefs reflected in the formation of coalitions? To answer these questions, a longitudinal study encompassing three collaborative decision-making arenas in the highly adversarial system for wildlife management in Sweden is performed. The empirical analysis indicates both stability and change within the new management system that confirms, as well as challenges, the theoretical assumptions guiding the analysis. While beliefs overall are rather stable, we note, surprisingly, how some participants’ more normatively oriented policy core beliefs have been slightly modified over time. A more expected result was that these adjustments in normative policy core beliefs were accompanied by a reformed coalition structure within the studied decision-making arenas. The study contributes to our understandings of policy beliefs and coalitions in conflicted policy areas; it underlines the mixed results of collaborative institutions found in previous research; yet, lends a modest support in favor of the transformative capacity of collaborative institutions.

Two systems working in parallel have contributed to implementation difficulties in Swedish water governance. While the old system is designed to be predictable and stable over time, the new system is intended to be transparent and holistic, guided by the principles of Integrated Water Resource Management. The paper disentangles the challenges in Swedish water governance and proposes a blueprint for future research. The proposed research project is unique in the sense that it explores the imbalances between the new and the old water governance systems from a multi-disciplinary perspective, elaborating upon the clashes between the traditional, nationally based regulatory system and the new holistic water governance system from legal, political and economic perspectives.

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of two forms of short-term knowledge communication – lectures and group deliberations – on public managers’ policy beliefs regarding genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. Genetic biodiversity is a key component of biological variation, but despite scientific knowledge and far-reaching political goals, genetic biodiversity remains neglected in marine management. Previous research highlights lack of knowledge as one explanation to the implementation deficit. This multidisciplinary study builds on the identified need for an improved knowledge-transfer between science and on-going management. A basic knowledge package on genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea was presented as either a lecture or a deliberative group discussion to two separate samples of public managers who are involved in Baltic Sea and other biodiversity management at the regional level in Sweden. The empirical findings show that the communicated information has an impact on the public managers’ beliefs on genetic biodiversity of the Baltic Sea. Lectures seem more efficient to transfer knowledge on this theme. Those who received information through a lecture strengthen their confidence in area protection as a management tool to conserve genetic diversity. They were also more convinced of the obligation of authorities at national and regional level to take on larger responsibility for genetic conservation than those managers who participated in deliberative discussion.

The article evaluates whether the participatory arrangements in Swedish water management following from the European Union's Water Framework Directive contribute to legitimacy by increased learning and knowledge-generation. In contrast to most evaluations of collaborative arrangements, we use a three-tiered approach analyzing actors, processes and structures jointly, which allows us to more fully consider the merits and challenges facing this new management system. Based on original data collected from the Water councils in one of five Swedish Water Districts, we conclude that the prospects for learning and legitimacy-creation in Swedish water management are favorable. Despite the absence of decision-making power, a majority of the participants find the management system overall positive and meaningful, as new knowledge is collected and distributed through the Water councils. Thus, the management processes seem to work in favor of reaching the overarching goal of internal legitimacy, i.e. among the participating stakeholders. The main challenge, following our data, is for the new management system to serve as an arena for broad public involvement. As long as only a small number of stakeholders partake in the Water councils, the potential for creating external legitimacy for this new governance system is limited.

The aim of this study is to examine, and tentatively explain, how genetic bio- diversity is handled in the management of Baltic Sea Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Genetic biodiversity is critical for species’ adaptation to changing environmental condi- tions and is protected by international agreements. Nevertheless, recent research indicates that genetic biodiversity is neglected in marine environments and in the management of MPAs. This study focuses on Sweden and Finland, which together govern a substantial part of Baltic Sea MPAs, and builds on in-depth interviews with regional conservation man- agers that are responsible for establishing and managing these areas. The empirical findings confirm that genetic biodiversity is absent, or plays a minor role, in contemporary MPA management. The findings also provide several possible explanations to this situation: unclear understandings of formal policy, lack of resources, deficient knowledge base, and the managers’ own policy beliefs. Policy makers and high-level managers need to consider these aspects in their efforts to protect biodiversity.

Genetic diversity is needed for species’ adaptation to changing selective pressures and is particularly important in regions with rapid environmental change such as the Baltic Sea. Conservation measures should consider maintaining large gene pools to maximize species’ adaptive potential for long-term survival. In this study, we explored concerns regarding genetic variation in international and national policies that governs biodiversity and evaluated if and how such policy is put into practice in management plans governing Baltic Sea Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Germany. We performed qualitative and quantitative textual analysis of 240 documents and found that agreed international and national policies on genetic biodiversity are not reflected in management plans for Baltic Sea MPAs. Management plans in all countries are largely void of goals and strategies for genetic biodiversity, which can partly be explained by a general lack of conservation genetics in policies directed toward aquatic environments.

The widespread supposition that collaborative management designs enhance legitimacy must be examined empirically, and the rich diversity of different collaborative arrangements should be better acknowledged in this endeavor. This study adopts a social network perspective and examines three state-initiated and interest-based collaborative management arenas in Swedish wildlife management: wildlife conservation committees (WCCs). Is there a link between social network structures in collaborative management arenas and the perceived legitimacy of output by policy stakeholders? This puzzle is addressed through social network analysis combined with survey data and interviews. The empirical results confirm the notion that collaborative arenas consisting of high network closure with many bridging ties across organizational boundaries enjoy a higher level of support among stakeholders directly involved in management, as members of the committees, than networks with a more sparse structure do. This type of well-integrated network structure seemingly increases stakeholders’ understanding of other actors’ perspectives through deliberation. Contrary to what was expected, though, the empirical analysis did not verify the effect of linking, or outreaching ties between the committee members and the organizations that they represent, on the organizations’ support of WCC decisions. Given the rapid rise of collaborative designs in public administrations, the topic elaborated in this paper is urgent and further research is encouraged.

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