How advocacy coalitions in Sweden explain the policy gap between Swedish and EU eel fishery policies.

IF 5.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Ambio Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-02117-1
Jens Nilsson, Annica Sandström
{"title":"How advocacy coalitions in Sweden explain the policy gap between Swedish and EU eel fishery policies.","authors":"Jens Nilsson, Annica Sandström","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-02117-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our study explores governing of European eel in Sweden. The paper aims to analyze and tentatively explain the degree of policy coherence between different political levels and discuss implications for management. The study focuses on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and a qualitative methodology. Results show that EU and Swedish eel fishery policies are based on partly different beliefs about prioritized groups, problem descriptions, and policy preferences. Swedish policy is more considerate of fishery, attentive to the problems of hydropower, and hesitant toward fishery closures, than is the EU. These differences can be understood by the positions and power of the two advocacy coalitions competing for influence at the national level. National decisions align more with the coalition that includes fishery organizations, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and coastal municipalities than with the beliefs of the coalition involving environmental-and sport fishing organizations and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.</p>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02117-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our study explores governing of European eel in Sweden. The paper aims to analyze and tentatively explain the degree of policy coherence between different political levels and discuss implications for management. The study focuses on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and a qualitative methodology. Results show that EU and Swedish eel fishery policies are based on partly different beliefs about prioritized groups, problem descriptions, and policy preferences. Swedish policy is more considerate of fishery, attentive to the problems of hydropower, and hesitant toward fishery closures, than is the EU. These differences can be understood by the positions and power of the two advocacy coalitions competing for influence at the national level. National decisions align more with the coalition that includes fishery organizations, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and coastal municipalities than with the beliefs of the coalition involving environmental-and sport fishing organizations and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ambio
Ambio 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信