Search

While societies are facing complex problems involving multiple stakeholders and interdependencies, interest in collaborative governance as a potential solution is rising. Research-based interventions in policy, planning, and management processes have been introduced to test different approaches and tools for collaboration. The nature of these processes, tools, and approaches varies substantially, as do researchers' cultures of making contributions to and in collaboration with society. This paper outlines the various possibilities and means for researchers to intervene in and explore steps towards collaborative governance. It utilises literature-based descriptions of potential roles for researchers and draws on insight from Finnish collaborative governance interventions in environmental decision-making. The conventional role of researchers as providers of knowledge was complemented with roles needed to foster favourable conditions for collaboration. Tensions regarding these roles show that collaborative governance requires a reflexive position from researchers, enabling them to adapt their ideas about collaboration to specific governance settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity offsetting is a governance mechanism proposed as a solution to ecosystem degradation and the underlying economic drivers. Biodiversity offsetting's potential is often evaluated and argued with ecological and economic criteria. These factors are intertwined with a multitude of social and ideological conditions for acceptance and legitimacy, which have received less systematic empirical attention especially from the perspective of the actors who implement the offsets. In this paper, we empirically analyse how companies and authorities, the central actors applying biodiversity offsetting in practice, perceive the social acceptance in the design and implementation of the emerging mechanism in Finland. The interview data analysed with three interlinked dimensions of social acceptance, namely socio‐political acceptance, market acceptance and community acceptance reveal where the mechanism's implementation may face friction with the central actors. While the importance of social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting shows to be a priority for the actors that will be implementing the mechanism and carrying the responsibility of the offsets in practice, the division of roles and benefits remains a point of tension, in the political sphere, in the market and in the community. Our analysis points to the necessity of integrating social and local values alongside ecological and economic ones as a way to address social acceptance. Finding the limits to flexibility between ecological, economic and social aspects is important in order to reach the diverse objectives of a BO mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]