IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v80y2017icp133-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promises and dilemmas in forest fire management decision-making: Exploring conditions for community engagement in Australia and Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Eckerberg, Katarina
  • Buizer, Marleen

Abstract

Prescribed burning, to prevent larger fires or to encourage ecological restoration, is a highly contested practice, raising both complex practical questions relating to safety and techniques, and deep philosophical questions about the relationship between people and nature. Previous research either analyses conflict in forest fire management, or argues for social learning but does not discuss how this might happen. We explore what community engagement in fire management might contribute, and how policy conditions enable or constrain deliberative practices in fire management in two very different countries, Sweden and Australia. In Sweden, burning is gradually emerging on foresters' and nature conservationists' agendas, whereas in Australia, prescribed burning has been practiced and debated on a relatively broad scale for some time. Both countries rely much on technical expertise, while merging this with local knowledge in transformative processes in which conflicts and difference have a place could enhance the quality of the debates.

Suggested Citation

  • Eckerberg, Katarina & Buizer, Marleen, 2017. "Promises and dilemmas in forest fire management decision-making: Exploring conditions for community engagement in Australia and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 133-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:133-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116301836
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.020?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. Jana-Axinja Paschen & Ruth Beilin, 2015. "‘Avoiding the certainty trap’: a research programme for the policy–practice interface," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1394-1411, December.
    2. Richard Bull & Judith Petts & James Evans, 2010. "The importance of context for effective public engagement: learning from the governance of waste," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(8), pages 991-1009.
    3. 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.
    4. Blythe McLennan & Joshua Whittaker & John Handmer, 2016. "The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 2031-2048, December.
    5. Karyn Bosomworth, 2015. "Climate change adaptation in public policy: frames, fire management, and frame reflection," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1450-1466, December.
    6. Rachel Brummel & Kristen Nelson & Stephanie Grayzeck Souter & Pamela Jakes & Daniel Williams, 2010. "Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(6), pages 681-699.
    7. Sandstrom, Camilla & Widmark, Camilla, 2007. "Stakeholders' perceptions of consultations as tools for co-management -- A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1-2), pages 25-35, December.
    8. Khulan Altangerel & Christian A. Kull, 2013. "The prescribed burning debate in Australia: conflicts and compatibilities," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 103-120, January.
    9. Robert E. Goodin & John S. Dryzek, 2006. "Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics," Politics & Society, , vol. 34(2), pages 219-244, June.
    10. Sletto, Bjørn, 2008. "The Knowledge that Counts: Institutional Identities, Policy Science, and the Conflict Over Fire Management in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1938-1955, October.
    11. Widman, Ulrika, 2015. "Shared responsibility for forest protection?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 220-227.
    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. Martins, A. & Novais, A. & Santos, J.L. & Canadas, M.J., 2021. "Experts’ multiple criteria evaluations of fuel management options to reduce wildfire susceptibility. The role of closer knowledge of the local socioeconomic context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Mylek, Melinda R. & Schirmer, Jacki, 2020. "Understanding acceptability of fuel management to reduce wildfire risk: Informing communication through understanding complexity of thinking," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    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. Terri Mannarini & Angela Fedi, 2018. "Using Quali-Quantitative Indicators for Assessing the Quality of Citizen Participation: A Study on Three Citizen Juries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 473-490, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    5. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    6. Alessandro Paletto & Claudia Becagli & Francesco Geri & Sandro Sacchelli & Isabella De Meo, 2022. "Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Meadows, John & Annandale, Mark & Ota, Liz, 2019. "Indigenous Peoples’ participation in sustainability standards for extractives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
    9. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    11. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    12. Geiguen Shin, 2022. "How Ostrom's design principles apply to large‐scale commons: Cooperation over international river basins," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(5), pages 674-697, September.
    13. Beck, Erin, 2016. "Repopulating Development: An Agent-Based Approach to Studying Development Interventions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 19-32.
    14. Silva Larson & Thomas G Measham & Liana J Williams, 2009. "Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    15. Carl Österlin & Peter Schlyter & Ingrid Stjernquist, 2020. "Different Worldviews as Impediments to Integrated Nature and Cultural Heritage Conservation Management: Experiences from Protected Areas in Northern Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Hartmut Fünfgeld & Kate Lonsdale & Karyn Bosomworth, 2019. "Beyond the tools: supporting adaptation when organisational resources and capacities are in short supply," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 625-641, April.

    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:80:y:2017:i:c:p:133-140. 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.