IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v45y2014icp13-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process

Author

Listed:
  • Kangas, Annika
  • Heikkilä, Juuso
  • Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna
  • Löfström, Irja

Abstract

Participatory planning is becoming increasingly important in forest management, especially in the urban areas. In order to obtain good results, the managers need to have guidelines to help them in designing and carrying out a successful participatory planning process. In this study, a planning process in Puijo urban forest in central Finland was evaluated against a set of success criteria found from the literature. In addition, the people involved in the process—both the stakeholders and managers—were asked to complete a Q-sort questionnaire and rank a set of statements describing the process. The evaluation of the process documents and videotapes showed that the process was successful with respect to most of the criteria used. The Q-sorts, on the other hand, revealed more critical viewpoints in the areas of power to influence the process and outcomes, access to information and enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes. Thus, these two evaluations complemented each other well. The results of this study can be used to further develop the process guidelines for participatory planning in urban areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:13-23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114000665
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marjolein Visser & James Moran & E.C. Regan & M. Gormally & M. Sheehy Skeffington, 2007. "How users and non-users perceive turlough management under the converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP in Ireland," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/115027, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    3. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    4. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2012. "Forest owners and power: A Foucauldian study on Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 118-125.
    6. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    7. Saarikoski, Heli & Tikkanen, Jukka & Leskinen, Leena A., 2010. "Public participation in practice -- Assessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in Northern Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 349-356, June.
    8. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    9. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, Irina & Buttoud, Gerard, 2006. "Assessment of an iterative process: The double spiral of re-designing participation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 529-541, July.
    11. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Satyal, Poshendra, 2018. "Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 83-96.
    2. Corral, Serafín & Legna-de la Nuez, David & Romero-Manrique de Lara, David, 2015. "Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 41-53.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    2. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    3. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    4. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    5. Weber, Norbert, 2018. "Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 98-106.
    6. Kozová, Mária & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Pauditšová, Eva & Tomčíková, Ivana & Rakytová, Iveta, 2018. "Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 31-41.
    7. Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    8. Foster, Michaela & Peterson, M. Nils & Cubbage, Frederick & McMahon, Gerard, 2019. "Evaluating natural resource planning for longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 142-153.
    9. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    10. Bowditch, Euan A.D. & McMorran, Rob & Bryce, Rosalind & Smith, Melanie, 2019. "Perception and partnership: Developing forest resilience on private estates," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 110-122.
    11. Valkeapää, Annukka & Karppinen, Heimo, 2013. "Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 52-59.
    12. Balest, Jessica & Hrib, Michal & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Paletto, Alessandro, 2018. "The formulation of the National Forest Programme in the Czech Republic: A qualitative survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 16-21.
    13. Phelps, Jacob & Zabala, Aiora & Daeli, Willy & Carmenta, Rachel, 2021. "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    14. Grundel, Ida & Christenson, Nina & Dahlström, Margareta, 2022. "Identifying interests and values in forest areas through collaborative processes and landscape resource analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    15. Jose Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Esperanza Ayuga-Tellez & Concepcion Gonzalez-Garcia & M. Angeles Grande-Ortiz & Alvaro Sánchez De Medina Garrido, 2017. "Experts’ Analysis of the Quality and Usability of SILVANET Software for Informing Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Scardina, Anthony V. & Mortimer, Michael J. & Dudley, Larkin, 2007. "Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA Forest Service public involvement processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 883-902, May.
    17. Corral, Serafín & Legna-de la Nuez, David & Romero-Manrique de Lara, David, 2015. "Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 41-53.
    18. Joyce, Linda A., 2003. "Improving the flow of scientific information across the interface of forest science and policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 339-347, December.
    19. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.
    20. Secco, Laura & Pisani, Elena & Da Re, Riccardo & Rogelja, Todora & Burlando, Catie & Vicentini, Kamini & Pettenella, Davide & Masiero, Mauro & Miller, David & Nijnjk, Maria, 2019. "Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 9-22.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:13-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.