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
Democracy and Sustainable Development in wildlife management: From ‘stakeholders’ to ‘citizens’ in the Swedish wolf restoration process
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Earth Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences.
2012 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

In an attempt to lend legitimacy to the troubled wolf project and to root policies in wolf-affected counties, decision-making was decentralized to stakeholder-based county wildlife management delegations in Sweden in 2009. Drawing from Habermas’ critical theory, this paper suggests that a phenomenon of instrumental rationality is currently circumscribing free and open deliberation in these delegations. Consequently, stakeholders remain fixed in their predetermined positions as wolf-skeptic hunters or pro-wolf conservationists, unable to be swayed by the deliberative process.

The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers to deliberation that account for the perseverance of this strategic stakeholder rationality. Three county wildlife delegations are investigated as examples of this. The paper identifies the following four barriers, which are traced to instrumentality: strong sense of accountability, overly purposive atmosphere, overemphasis on decision as final outcome and perceived inability on the part of the delegates to influence decision-making, which is found by and large to still be ruled by scientists.

Through these findings, it suggests that such barriers cause delegates to censor their own discursive attempts and to act with strategic rather than with communicative rationality toward the decision-making process. Finally, the paper concludes that the effect of instrumentality in these delegations is currently leading to (1) a crisis of legitimacy for the wolf project, as according to Habermas’ theory and (2) reduced individual freedom under the pursuit of sustainable development, as freedom has been confined to the dimension of the protection and promotion of private interests. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. , 54 p.
Keyword [en]
Sustainable Development, wildlife management, deliberative democracy, stakeholder, strategic rationality, environmental communication
National Category
Natural Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-174884OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-174884DiVA: diva2:529315
Educational program
Master Programme in Sustainable Development
Presentation
, Uppsala
Uppsok
Life Earth Science
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2012-06-11 Created: 2012-05-29 Last updated: 2012-06-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(609 kB)496 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 609 kBChecksum SHA-512
10db9c7f52717b60f0346d3a55d6e7312e9232ce83b487655d8ba0418a6d6ae37c531b6e00e6903cc13c0b28b90274dd372d35f7d80e8e6858eb34111d9a7a87
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Earth Sciences
Natural Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 496 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 661 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