Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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
The link between collaborative governance design and markers of legitimacy: Comparing Swedish water- and large carnivore management
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2030-2965
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1685-5527
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1631-0591
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3038-8419
2021 (English)In: Environmental Policy and Governance, ISSN 1756-932X, E-ISSN 1756-9338, Vol. 31, no 6, p. 563-579Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper addresses how the design of collaborative regimes influences markers of legitimacy in Swedish water- and large carnivore governance. Based on institutional analysis and statistical analysis of survey data, the study examines two systems with different types of collaborative designs and compares them in relation to markers of legitimacy, in terms of perceived process quality, policy agreement and policy acceptance among the involved decision-making actors and concerned organizations. The findings show how the design of collaboration influences some, but not all, explored markers of legitimacy. First, the categories of actors involved; whom they are accountable to; and the authority given to the collaborative forums, effect perceptions of influence, the possibility of reaching joint agreements and the degree of policy agreement among involved decision-makers. Second, the findings indicate that the degree of policy agreement among concerned organizations is unaffected by differences in institutional design. Third, the degree of policy acceptance among involved decision-making actors and concerned organizations was unaffected by institutional design and notably high in both systems. The results both verify and develop previous research findings and the message to policymakers is to carefully consider the design when introducing new collaborative forums, including whom to invite, in what role, and with what mandate.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2021. Vol. 31, no 6, p. 563-579
Keywords [en]
collaborative governance regimes, deliberation, environmental governance, policy acceptance, policy agreement
National Category
Political Science Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-86474DOI: 10.1002/eet.1958ISI: 000675182200001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85110950695OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-86474DiVA, id: diva2:1581982
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 254-2014-586
Note

Validerad;2022;Nivå 2;2022-02-28 (joosat)

Available from: 2021-07-27 Created: 2021-07-27 Last updated: 2022-03-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Söderberg, CharlottaSandström, AnnicaLundmark, CarinaNilsson, Jens

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Söderberg, CharlottaSandström, AnnicaLundmark, CarinaNilsson, Jens
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Environmental Policy and Governance
Political ScienceSocial Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 284 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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