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
Tracing the sources of legitimacy: The impact of deliberation in participatory natural resource management
Stockholms Universitet, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.
Stockholm University, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1685-5527
2015 (English)In: Policy sciences, ISSN 0032-2687, E-ISSN 1573-0891, Vol. 48, no 4, p. 443-461Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It is widely assumed that stakeholder participation has great potential to improve the perceived legitimacy of natural resource management (NRM) and that the deliberative-democratic qualities of participatory procedures are central to the prospects of success. However, attempts to measure the actual effects of deliberation on the perceived legitimacy of participatory NRM are rare. This article examines the links between deliberation and legitimacy in participatory NRM empirically by tracing the determinants of stakeholders’ level of policy support and their views about procedural fairness. The study uses statistical methods to analyse survey data from a state-led initiative to develop new plans for ecosystem-based coastal and marine management through a participatory approach in five coastal areas in Sweden. We find that the perceived quality of deliberation had a positive impact on these aspects of legitimacy. However, both policy support and perceived procedural fairness were mainly driven by instrumental-substantive considerations rather than deliberative-democratic qualities of the process.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 48, no 4, p. 443-461
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-9530DOI: 10.1007/s11077-015-9230-0ISI: 000364573800003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84946493403Local ID: 82eb24b2-ff2d-4ed1-9c8a-0f88c957de6fOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-9530DiVA, id: diva2:982468
Note
Validerad; 2015; Nivå 2; 20150905 (annicas)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Sandström, Annica

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sandström, Annica
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Policy sciences
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 75 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