IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v166y2021ics0040162521000950.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’

Author

Listed:
  • Burt, George
  • Mackay, David
  • Mendibil, Kepa

Abstract

Land use, woodland and forestry policy continues to evolve in response to unfolding economic, social and environmental challenges and opportunities. Concerns about integration across the stakeholder landscape impacting delivery and implementation of policy are common. Competing public and private sector stakeholder goals, narratives and actions are problematic. Developing insights from a recent case study, we uncover fragmentation in narratives, tensions in priorities, and misunderstandings at multiple levels between stakeholders. We identify the corrective influence of ‘dissociative jolts’ to trigger stakeholder's self-realisation of the extent of their unintentionally diverse interpretations of policy. These ‘dissociative jolts’ moments triggered open discussion, debate and reflexive questioning by the participants, enabling them to constructively contest their differences. In doing so, the participants were able to challenge and deconstruct their assumptions, reconstruct and develop new, shared understanding without trauma or denial. The structured mechanisms and formalisms of the intuitive-logics scenario planning approach provided a psychologically safe space with openness and equality of input to surface, explore, question and defragment stakeholder assumptions and narratives. The outcome of this defragmentation process was the collective recognition of failure, if the situation did not change, the dissolution of observed tensions conflicts and dilemmas, and the negotiated agreement for future action by the diverse stakeholder group.

Suggested Citation

  • Burt, George & Mackay, David & Mendibil, Kepa, 2021. "Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:166:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521000950
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521000950
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120663?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. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    2. Eero Vaara & Scott Sonenshein & David Boje, 2016. "Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations : Approaches and Directions for Future Research," Post-Print hal-02313402, HAL.
    3. Burt, George & Mackay, David J. & van der Heijden, Kees & Verheijdt, Charlotte, 2017. "Openness disposition: Readiness characteristics that influence participant benefits from scenario planning as strategic conversation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 16-25.
    4. Munier, Francis & Ronde, Patrick, 2001. "The role of knowledge codification in the emergence of consensus under uncertainty: empirical analysis and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1537-1551, December.
    5. Warth, Johannes & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Darkow, Inga-Lena, 2013. "A dissent-based approach for multi-stakeholder scenario development — The future of electric drive vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 566-583.
    6. Frith, David & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2020. "Opening the ‘black box’ of scenario planning through realist synthesis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Burt, George & Nair, Anup Karath, 2020. "Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: Strategic foresight through ‘Unlearning’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Franck Aggeri, 1999. "Environmental policies and innovation : a knowledge-based perspective on cooperative approaches," Post-Print halshs-00644610, HAL.
    9. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    10. Haridimos Tsoukas, 2009. "A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 941-957, December.
    11. Madlener, Reinhard & Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid, 2007. "New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6060-6074, December.
    12. Slee, Bill, 2006. "The socio-economic evaluation of the impact of forestry on rural development: A regional level analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 542-554, July.
    13. Cubbage, Frederick & Harou, Patrice & Sills, Erin, 2007. "Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 833-851, April.
    14. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.
    15. Wright, David & Stahl, Bernd & Hatzakis, Tally, 2020. "Policy scenarios as an instrument for policymakers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Muñoz-Rojas, José & Nijnik, Maria & González-Puente, Marc & Cortines-García, Felipe, 2015. "Synergies and conflicts in the use of policy and planning instruments for implementing forest and woodland corridors and networks; a case study in NE Scotland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 47-64.
    17. Soste, Leon & Wang, Q.J. & Robertson, David & Chaffe, Robert & Handley, Selina & Wei, Yongping, 2015. "Engendering stakeholder ownership in scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 250-263.
    18. Helen Couclelis, 2005. "“Where has the Future Gone?†Rethinking the Role of Integrated Land-Use Models in Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(8), pages 1353-1371, August.
    19. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    20. Cairns, George & Ahmed, Iftekhar & Mullett, Jane & Wright, George, 2013. "Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: Critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 1-10.
    21. Eero Vaara & Scott Sonenshein & David Boje, 2016. "Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations : Approaches and Directions for Future Research," Post-Print hal-02276673, HAL.
    22. Javier Delgado-Ceballos & Juan Aragón-Correa & Natalia Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Antonio Rueda-Manzanares, 2012. "The Effect of Internal Barriers on the Connection Between Stakeholder Integration and Proactive Environmental Strategies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 281-293, May.
    23. Spickermann, Alexander & Grienitz, Volker & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2014. "Heading towards a multimodal city of the future?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-221.
    24. Peter Loukopoulos & Roland W Scholz, 2004. "Sustainable Future Urban Mobility: Using ‘Area Development Negotiations’ for Scenario Assessment and Participatory Strategic Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2203-2226, December.
    25. Sokolov, Alexander & Veselitskaya, Natalia & Carabias, Vicente & Yildirim, Onur, 2019. "Scenario-based identification of key factors for smart cities development policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    26. Purnomo, Herry & Mendoza, Guillermo A. & Prabhu, Ravi & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2005. "Developing multi-stakeholder forest management scenarios: a multi-agent system simulation approach applied in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 475-491, May.
    27. Aggeri, Franck, 1999. "Environmental policies and innovation: A knowledge-based perspective on cooperative approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 699-717, September.
    28. Paschen, Jana-Axinja & Ison, Ray, 2014. "Narrative research in climate change adaptation—Exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1083-1092.
    29. Colin Eden, 1992. "Strategy Development As A Social Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 799-812, November.
    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. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Zhongqiong Qu & Yongxin Wei & Xun Li, 2021. "Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.

    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. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Hansen, Meiken & Selin, Cynthia, 2021. "Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    3. Natalya Sergeeva & Johan Ninan, 2023. "Comparisons as a discursive tool: shaping megaproject narratives in the United Kingdom," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(2), pages 197-211.
    4. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Raghu Garud & Nelson Phillips, 2022. "Entrepreneurial Framing: A Literature Review and Future Research Directions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 578-606, May.
    5. Plotnikof, Mie & Pedersen, Anne Reff, 2019. "Exploring resistance in collaborative forms of governance: Meaning negotiations and counter-narratives in a case from the Danish education sector," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4).
    6. Fisher, Greg & Neubert, Emily & Burnell, Devin, 2021. "Resourcefulness narratives: Transforming actions into stories to mobilize support," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    7. Mark Fenton‐O'Creevy & David Tuckett, 2022. "Selecting futures: The role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    8. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    9. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    10. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Roxana Bădîrcea & Luminița Vochița & Maria Enescu, 2019. "Sustainable Development of Mountain Hotels through the Implementation of International Management Standards: The Romanian Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    11. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    12. Rory McDonald & Cheng Gao, 2019. "Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1289-1318, November.
    13. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    14. Hadjielias, Elias & Christofi, Michael & Tarba, Shlomo, 2021. "Knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing in small family farms: A stewardship view," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 279-292.
    15. Mohamed Akli Achabou & Sihem Dekhili & Linda Prince, 2014. "Proactive CSR: Analytical Hierarchy Process And Empirical Assessment In The French Context," Working Papers 2014-75, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    16. Franck Aggeri & Aurélien Acquier, 2005. "La théorie des stakeholders permet-elle de rendre compte des pratiques d'entreprise en matière de RSE ?," Post-Print halshs-00645708, HAL.
    17. Fethi, Sami & Rahuma, Abdulhamid, 2020. "The impact of eco-innovation on CO2 emission reductions: Evidence from selected petroleum companies," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 108-115.
    18. Jeffrey S. Bednar & Benjamin M. Galvin & Blake E. Ashforth & Ella Hafermalz, 2020. "Putting Identification in Motion: A Dynamic View of Organizational Identification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 200-222, January.
    19. Beatriz Junquera & Jesús Ángel Del Brío, 2016. "Preventive Command and Control Regulation: A Case Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Mélodie Cartel & Eva Boxenbaum & Franck Aggeri & Jean-Yves Caneill, 2017. "Policy making as collective bricolage: the role of the electricity sector in the making of the European carbon market," Post-Print hal-01615460, HAL.

    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:tefoso:v:166:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521000950. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.