Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, Joensuu, 80101, Finland.
Environ Manage. 2011 Jul;48(1):212-28. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9672-x. Epub 2011 Apr 11.
Many countries, including Sweden and Finland, are decentralizing the management of large carnivore species within their borders and emphasizing the role of stakeholder participation in legitimizing formal policy. Regional large carnivore committees (RLCCs), including representatives of authorities and non-governmental organizations, are essential to these endeavors. These committees are formally constituted in Sweden, whereas in Finland, they are informally developed from the bottom-up. In both countries, the declared roles of these committees are consultative. A comparative study based on survey data is described here, which address the question of how procedural legitimacy is shaped and maintained in institutional settings with different origins, such as top-down or bottom-up. The results indicate no clear difference in the representatives' general satisfaction with the country-specific arrangements. Notable differences were found in specific perceptions of the clarity and purposes of the RLCCs. In both countries, the perceived rationale for the establishment of RLCCs emphasized the knowledge and expertise of the represented interest groups and authorities. Between the countries, similarities were also found in the strong links between overall satisfaction and personally perceived success and progress in communication and information exchange, i.e., deliberative processes. The capacity of the RLCCs to improve trust and acceptability with regard to different opinions was viewed as a key element underlying satisfactory RLCC activities, irrespective of the institutional settings.
包括瑞典和芬兰在内的许多国家正在将其境内大型食肉动物物种的管理权力下放，并强调利益相关者参与在使正式政策合法化方面的作用。区域大型食肉动物委员会（RLCCs），包括当局和非政府组织的代表，是这些努力的关键。这些委员会在瑞典是正式组成的，而在芬兰则是自下而上非正式发展起来的。在这两个国家，这些委员会的宣布角色都是咨询性的。本文描述了一项基于调查数据的比较研究，该研究探讨了在具有不同起源的制度环境中，如自上而下或自下而上，程序合法性是如何形成和维持的。结果表明，代表们对特定国家安排的总体满意度没有明显差异。在 RLCC 的清晰度和目的的具体看法上存在显著差异。在这两个国家，RLCC 成立的理由都强调了代表利益集团和当局的知识和专业知识。在国家之间，还发现了一些相似之处，即对总体满意度与个人感知到的在沟通和信息交流方面的成功和进展之间的紧密联系，即审议过程。RLCC 提高对不同意见的信任和可接受性的能力被视为 RLCC 活动令人满意的关键因素，而不论制度环境如何。
