The limits of co-production: linking regulatory capacity to co-production of authoritative knowledge for environmental policy DOI
Daniel Large

Science and Public Policy, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 51(5), P. 978 - 991

Published: July 8, 2024

Abstract This paper introduces a novel perspective on co-production of authoritative knowledge in environmental policy, shifting focus from perceived flaws production to structural and governance challenges impeding uptake. It argues that these challenges, including diminishing support for public authority widespread enthusiasm collaboration, contribute regulatory capacity deficits, which undermine claims’ authority. account is tested through case study analysis policy stakeholders Colorado, USA, who sought co-produce scientific assessment biodiversity offsetting. Despite repeated efforts, industry disengaged twice, leading abandonment the initiative. Analysis demonstrates capacity’s crucial role fostering integration policymaking. By analyzing failure sustain stakeholder engagement terms interplay between co-production, this contributes critique mainstream value how institutional arrangements shape integration.

Language: Английский

Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future DOI Creative Commons
Martine Maron, Amrei von Hase, Fabien Quétier

et al.

Published: Feb. 28, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Historical Foundations of Green Developmental Policies: Divergent Trajectories in United States and France DOI Creative Commons
Ritwick Ghosh, Stéphanie Barral, Fanny Guillet

et al.

Regulation & Governance, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Oct. 8, 2024

ABSTRACT In recent years, many countries have adopted biodiversity offset policies to internalize the ecological impacts of land developments. Although national share general principle equalizing harm with gain, there is substantial variation across programs regarding institutional forms governing offsetting. this paper, we compare governance in United States and France reflect more broadly on factors shaping divergent trajectories green developmental policies. Both some form offsetting place, but major fault line difference extensive use market‐based instruments (MBI) States. Using a historical lens, argue that one important reason for lies different legal‐institutional definitions biodiversity. A narrower definition focused individual species, versus broader ecosystems, has facilitated standardized arrangement Leveraging standardization, markets expanded while similar efforts institutionalize market mechanisms struggled France. The comparison allows us draw insights into challenges greening economic development, particularly showing how scientific, legal, structures condition policy outcomes.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
The limits of co-production: linking regulatory capacity to co-production of authoritative knowledge for environmental policy DOI
Daniel Large

Science and Public Policy, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 51(5), P. 978 - 991

Published: July 8, 2024

Abstract This paper introduces a novel perspective on co-production of authoritative knowledge in environmental policy, shifting focus from perceived flaws production to structural and governance challenges impeding uptake. It argues that these challenges, including diminishing support for public authority widespread enthusiasm collaboration, contribute regulatory capacity deficits, which undermine claims’ authority. account is tested through case study analysis policy stakeholders Colorado, USA, who sought co-produce scientific assessment biodiversity offsetting. Despite repeated efforts, industry disengaged twice, leading abandonment the initiative. Analysis demonstrates capacity’s crucial role fostering integration policymaking. By analyzing failure sustain stakeholder engagement terms interplay between co-production, this contributes critique mainstream value how institutional arrangements shape integration.

Language: Английский

Citations

0