nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

11.09.2015 | Research Article

Tracing the sources of legitimacy: the impact of deliberation in participatory natural resource management

verfasst von: Simon Birnbaum, Örjan Bodin, Annica Sandström

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Social constructions of obesity target population: an empirical look at obesity policy narratives

Nächster Artikel Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

For example, “collaborative” public management (or co-governance) (Fung 2006; Ansell and Gash 2008), has been defined as a context of stakeholder participation where “one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative…” (Ansell and Gash 2008, 544; cf. Choi and Robertson 2014, 495).

The Swedish formulation used in the survey to capture this aspect of legitimacy is “Jag ställer mig bakom” (“I stand behind”). Responding affirmatively to this implies an explicit commitment to the result of the participatory process (i.e. it is stronger than simply “being in favour of”). This is, of course, fully consistent with having personal views that may deviate considerably from the collectively agreed content of plan, just as we may fully recognize the moral validity of a hard-won compromise or wholeheartedly accept the winner of a fair election even when we voted for a different candidate.

This emphasis of our study leaves out whether these practices may also be perceived as legitimate by non-participants (Jentoft 2000, 145). More fundamentally, it also means that the study remains silent on normative conceptions of legitimacy, i.e. on when and why we “have good reasons to support or obey” a public policy or decision (Fung 2006, 70; cf. Beetham 2013; Pettit 2012). We are not, then, trying to establish whether (or how well) the participatory approach under study satisfied any particular normative standard of legitimacy, deliberative or not.

Learning is also often treated as an important aim in itself. With this in mind, we should stress that our focus on the possible role of learning-related variables to serve the ends of perceived legitimacy is not to imply that such goals of social learning and better informed decisions are less important than perceived legitimacy, or to deny that they may also be very important objectives in their own right.

The terms of “an ecosystem-approach”, “ecosystem management” and “ecosystem-based management” are not identical and different meanings have been attached to each of these terms. For our present purposes, however, we shall leave such differences aside and use them interchangeably. What matters here is that they can all be analysed as part of the same general discourse (introduced below) in which the emphasis on stakeholder participation is a key component.

Of course, this is not meant to deemphasise the need for qualitative evidence to gain a fuller understanding of this process and the determinants of legitimacy (for such studies, see Borgström et al. 2015; Sandström et al. 2014, 2015).

It should be pointed out that all respondents have, as a prerequisite for taking part in the survey, participated in the process. Thus, answering “uncertain” represents uncertainty in terms of agreeing/disagreeing with the question statement, and not uncertainty as a result of not being part of the process.

Indeed, our results from a parallel study, presenting a content analysis of the five management plans, suggest that central parts of the plans were quite generally formulated, and that difficult trade-offs between opposing values, and divergent stakeholder interests were often avoided (Borgström et al. 2015; see also Sandström et al. 2015).

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.CrossRef

Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A., Davidson-Hunt, I., & Diduck, A. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95–102.CrossRef

Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Beetham, D. (2013). The legitimation of power (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Borgström, S., Bodin, Ö., Sandström, A., & Crona, B. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for assessing progress toward ecosystem-based management. Ambio, 44(3), 357–369.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76.CrossRefPubMed

Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2014). Deliberation and decision in collaborative governance: A simulation of approaches to mitigate power imbalance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 495–518.CrossRef

Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., Carpenter, S. R., D’Antonio, C., Francis, R., et al. (1996). The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 665–691.CrossRef

Coglianese, C. (1999). The limits of consensus. Environment, 41(3), 28–33.CrossRef

Cortner, H. J., & Moote, M. A. (1999). The politics of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Dryzek, J. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Dryzek, J., & List, C. (2003). Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Elster, J. (1986). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In J. Elster & A. H. Hylland (Eds.), Foundations of social choice theory (pp. 103–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.CrossRef

Fishkin, J., & Laslett, P. (Eds.). (2003). Debating deliberative democracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 30.

Fox, J. (2010) Polycor: Polychoric and polyserial correlations. R package version 0.7-8.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66–75.CrossRef

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21–30). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Imperial, M. (1999). Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and developmental framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449–465.CrossRefPubMed

Jentoft, S. (2000). Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 2(24), 141–148.CrossRef

Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1994). Aggregation and deliberation: On the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory, 22(2), 277–296.CrossRef

Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66, 111–121.CrossRef

Leach, W. D., Weible, C. M., Vince, S. R., Siddiki, S. N., & Calanni, J. C. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 591–622.CrossRef

Lubell, M. (2005). Do watershed partnerships enhance beliefs conducive to collective action. In P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 201–232). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., et al. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Meadowcroft, J. (2004). Deliberative democracy. In R. F. Durant, D. J. Fiorino, & R. O’Leary R (Eds.), Environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 183–218). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372.CrossRef

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), 2.

Parkins, J., & Mitchell, R. (2005). Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 529–540.CrossRef

Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 7–19.CrossRef

Pettit, P. (2012). On the people’s terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.CrossRef

Sandström, A., Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. (2015). Network governance from the top: The case of ecosystem-based coastal and marine management. Marine Policy, 55, 57–63.CrossRef

Sandström, A., Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2014). Legitimacy in co-management: The impact of preexisting structures, social networks and governance strategies. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(1), 60–76.CrossRef

Schuckman, M. (2001). Making the hard choices: A collaborative governance model for the biodiversity context. Washington University Law Quarterly, 79(1), 343–365.

Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management, 22(4), 483–493.CrossRefPubMed

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Samverkansplaner för värdefulla kust och Havsområden. Projektrapport och rekommendationer för vidare arbete. Rapport 6471, December 2011, Stockholm.

Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 497–520.CrossRef

Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration and Society, 32(5), 566–595.CrossRef

Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212.CrossRef

Wilson, D. C., Raakjaer Nielsen, J., & Degnbol, P. (2003). The fisheries co-management experience: Accomplishments, challenges and prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef

Zachrisson, A. (2010). Deliberative democracy and co-management of natural resources. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 273–292.CrossRef

Titel: Tracing the sources of legitimacy: the impact of deliberation in participatory natural resource management
verfasst von: Simon Birnbaum
Örjan Bodin
Annica Sandström
Publikationsdatum: 11.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9230-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

The political use of knowledge in the policy process

Policy logics, framing strategies, and policy change: lessons from universal pre-k policy debates in California and Florida

Social constructions of obesity target population: an empirical look at obesity policy narratives

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

Premium Partner