IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v62y2016icp36-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissimilar framings of forest biodiversity preservation: Uncertainty and legal ambiguity as contributing factors

Author

Listed:
  • Uggla, Ylva
  • Forsberg, Maria
  • Larsson, Stig

Abstract

Controversies over forestry and environmental issues, including biodiversity, are common. Theory suggests that uncertainty may play a major role in framing biodiversity and its preservation. This paper examines written statements on biodiversity preservation published by two major Swedish organizations, i.e., the Swedish Forest Industries Federation and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, with different interests in forest use. Frame analysis suggests that when the actors pursue a certain policy course, both biodiversity-related uncertainty and lack of regulatory clarity are important factors contributing to dissimilar framings. This case study supports the general understanding that biodiversity-related uncertainty can have important implications for biodiversity preservation, in this case, via forest policy and legislation. Scientific uncertainty may allow actors with dissimilar interests in an issue to justify their standpoints. To successfully manage forest biodiversity in the future, legal frameworks must increasingly find ways to accommodate scientific uncertainty, and models must be developed in which stakeholders' diverging interests and values address uncertainties via dialogue.

Suggested Citation

  • Uggla, Ylva & Forsberg, Maria & Larsson, Stig, 2016. "Dissimilar framings of forest biodiversity preservation: Uncertainty and legal ambiguity as contributing factors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 36-42.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:62:y:2016:i:c:p:36-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300277
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.007?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. Ylva Uggla, 2010. "The values of biological diversity: a travelogue," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(1), pages 91-105.
    2. Johansson, Johanna & Lidestav, Gun, 2011. "Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? -- Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 191-198, March.
    3. -, 1992. "Documentos de sala," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 33797, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    4. ., 2006. "Sustainable Development," Chapters, in: David Alexander Clark (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies, chapter 123, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    6. Bergseng, Even & Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict - Some evidence from the Nordic countries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 147-165, August.
    7. Ascough, J.C. & Maier, H.R. & Ravalico, J.K. & Strudley, M.W., 2008. "Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 383-399.
    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. Johansson, Johanna, 2016. "Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 137-146.
    2. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    4. Maier, Carolin & Wirth, Kristina, 2018. "The world(s) we live in – Inter-agency collaboration in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 102-111.
    5. Sténs, Anna & Mårald, Erland, 2020. "“Forest property rights under attack”: Actors, networks and claims about forest ownership in the Swedish press 2014–2017," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Löfmarck, Erik & Uggla, Ylva & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 34-40.

    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. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    2. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    3. Ana Paula Coelho Clauberg & Renato de Mello & Flávio José Simioni & Simone Sehnem, 2021. "System for assessing the sustainability conditions of small hydro plants by fuzzy logic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 300-317, March.
    4. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Seidl, Rupert & Fernandes, Paulo M. & Fonseca, Teresa F. & Gillet, François & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Merganičová, Katarína & Netherer, Sigrid & Arpaci, Alexander & Bontemps, Jean-Daniel & Bugmann, Hara, 2011. "Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 903-924.
    6. Kanapaux, William & Kiker, Gregory A., 2013. "Development and testing of an object-oriented model for adaptively managing human disturbance of least tern (Sternula antillarum) nesting habitat," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 268(C), pages 64-77.
    7. Cucari, Nicola & Wankowicz, Ewa & Esposito De Falco, Salvatore, 2019. "Rural tourism and Albergo Diffuso: A case study for sustainable land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 105-119.
    8. Davine N. G. Janssen & Eunice Pereira Ramos & Vincent Linderhof & Nico Polman & Chrysi Laspidou & Dennis Fokkinga & Duarte de Mesquita e Sousa, 2020. "The Climate, Land, Energy, Water and Food Nexus Challenge in a Land Scarce Country: Innovations in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    9. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    10. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    11. Elena Cervelli & Stefania Pindozzi & Emilia Allevato & Luigi Saulino & Roberto Silvestro & Ester Scotto di Perta & Antonio Saracino, 2022. "Landscape Planning Integrated Approaches to Support Post-Wildfire Restoration in Natural Protected Areas: The Vesuvius National Park Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    12. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    13. Reyes, René & Nelson, Harry & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2021. "How do decision makers´ ethnicity and religion influence the use of forests? Evidence from Chile," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    14. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    15. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    16. Kajsa Borgnäs, 2017. "Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 769-790, June.
    17. Batara Surya & Agus Salim & Hernita Hernita & Seri Suriani & Firman Menne & Emil Salim Rasyidi, 2021. "Land Use Change, Urban Agglomeration, and Urban Sprawl: A Sustainable Development Perspective of Makassar City, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-31, May.
    18. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    19. Sacchelli, S. & Fabbrizzi, S., 2015. "Minimisation of uncertainty in decision-making processes using optimised probabilistic Fuzzy Cognitive Maps: A case study for a rural sector," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 31-40.
    20. Gourlis, Georgios & Kovacic, Iva, 2017. "Building Information Modelling for analysis of energy efficient industrial buildings – A case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 953-963.

    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:62:y:2016:i:c:p:36-42. 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.