The wolf is an endangered animal in Sweden and the issue of conserving the species is a polarizing one. Specific attention has been given to this issue in environmental social sciences with studies focusing on the divide between wolf support and opposition. These studies include looking at historical interactions with the wolf, contemporary attitudes about the issue, and the way the law shapes policy. Following this focus on the disputed nature of wolf conservation, this thesis addresses whether polarization over the issue occurs between several stakeholders in large carnivore management in Sweden. Using Actor Network Theory, this thesis examines the similarities and divergences in the stakeholders’ conservation practices and maps their interactions with one another. Emphasis is placed on how the European Union’s regulations and the Swedish State’s policies conflict and/or influence the stakeholders. Overall results show that despite a discourse of polarization surrounding wolf management in Sweden, the actors in this study cannot be easily positioned against each other, and despite some divergences, share many similarities in their large carnivore management practices.

No description available.

The aim of this study is to analyze the conditions for legitimacy of the Wildlife Conservation Committees in two counties in Sweden. This study uses three concepts. Social networks, deliberation and learning as the main focus points to analyze. Olson's theory of organisations collective action with public goods stands as the theoretical perspective. Selective incitements are necessary to get them to promote the public goods. The study examines the legitimacy and functionality of the Wildlife Conservation Committees through interviews and an comparative study with the government bill 2008/09:2010. The results are that the governor with the leadership stands as a very important role to get organisations to make them promote collective action, because co-management thrives from it. The interest of hunters has an advantage when it comes to representation but only when the incentives for collective action are missing. The functionality differs between the committees when it comes to the form of management. Further research could expand the scope of this subject. Both the scale of included committees and with quantitative data research. The leadership role in co-management needs more focus in co-management studies.

No description available.