IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i11p14501-14520d57982.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability Frames in the Context of the Energy Wood Conflict in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Dörte Marie Peters

    (Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Ulrich Schraml

    (Department of Forest and Society, Forest Research Institute Baden-Wuerttemberg, Wonnhaldestrasse 4, 79100 Freiburg, Germany)

Abstract

Interpretations of the concept of sustainability vary substantially in relation to forests and their management, and they are usually present in conflicts about forest use. In this article, we consider underlying interests relating to conflicts of forest use as a given. Our aim is therefore not to reveal those interests, but rather to explore understandings of sustainability hiding behind them—sustainability frames. To this end, we use frame theory to investigate the following research question: How are different sustainability frames of interest groups reflected in a forest use conflict situation in Germany? The energy wood conflict serves as the example for our research, as it is currently the most prominent forest management conflict in Germany. Using 12 stakeholder interviews within three interest groups as the empirical data basis, it becomes clear that sustainability understandings reflect particular positionings in conflicts, or vice versa. In the energy wood conflict, the classic dichotomy between forestry and conservation groups becomes a trichotomy in which the forestry group splits into an interest group that profits from energy wood production and one that competes with it. We suggest that sustainability understandings do not represent worldviews that guide how actors understand conflicts, but rather that they are shaped according to actors’ particular interests in conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Dörte Marie Peters & Ulrich Schraml, 2015. "Sustainability Frames in the Context of the Energy Wood Conflict in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:11:p:14501-14520:d:57982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/11/14501/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/11/14501/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    3. Wang, Sen, 2004. "One hundred faces of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 205-213, June.
    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. Hengst-Ehrhart, Yvonne & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Back to the Forest’s future: Guiding principles of German forest stakeholders and their impact on the forestry sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.
    3. Gintautas Mozgeris & Vaiva Kazanavičiūtė & Daiva Juknelienė, 2021. "Does Aiming for Long-Term Non-Decreasing Flow of Timber Secure Carbon Accumulation: A Lithuanian Forestry Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, March.

    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. Dawid Szostek, 2019. "The Impact of the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships between Employees on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Study of Employees in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-33, October.
    2. Bahadur Ali Soomro & Ikhtiar Ali Ghumro & Naimatullah Shah, 2020. "Green entrepreneurship inclination among the younger generation: An avenue towards a green economy," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 585-594, July.
    3. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    4. John Holmberg & Johan Larsson, 2018. "A Sustainability Lighthouse—Supporting Transition Leadership and Conversations on Desirable Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Umberto Berardi, 2013. "Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1573-1591, December.
    6. Mehdi Jabbari & Majid Shafiepour Motlagh & Khosro Ashrafi & Ghahreman Abdoli, 2020. "Differentiating countries based on the sustainable development proximities using the SDG indicators," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6405-6423, October.
    7. Katharina Spraul & Julia Thaler, 2020. "Partnering for good? An analysis of how to achieve sustainability-related outcomes in public–private partnerships," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(2), pages 485-511, July.
    8. Korah, Prosper Issahaku & Nunbogu, Abraham Marshall & Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful & Akanbang, Bernard Afiik Akanpabadai, 2019. "Analysis of livelihood issues in resettlement mining communities in Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Alessandro Cariello & Rossella Ferorelli & Francesco Rotondo, 2021. "Tactical Urbanism in Italy: From Grassroots to Institutional Tool—Assessing Value of Public Space Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Xiucheng Dong & Jie Guo & Mikael Höök & Guanglin Pi, 2015. "Sustainability Assessment of the Natural Gas Industry in China Using Principal Component Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Erling Holden & Kristin Linnerud, 2007. "The sustainable development area: satisfying basic needs and safeguarding ecological sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 174-187.
    12. Fátima Lanhoso & Denis Alves Coelho, 2021. "Emergence fostered by systemic analysis—Seeding innovation for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 768-779, July.
    13. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    14. Sabrina Tabares & Andrés Morales & Sara Calvo & Valentín Molina Moreno, 2021. "Unpacking B Corps’ Impact on Sustainable Development: An Analysis from Structuration Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Niki Derlukiewicz & Anna Mempel-Sniezyk, 2018. "European cities in the face of sustainable development," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 17(2), pages 125-135, June.
    16. Lueg, Rainer & Radlach, Ronny, 2016. "Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 158-171.
    17. Markus J. Milne & Helen Tregidga & Sara Walton, 2009. "Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(8), pages 1211-1257, October.
    18. Sebastjan Lazar & Dorota Klimecka-Tatar & Matevz Obrecht, 2021. "Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, March.
    19. Andrei Cristian Rada & Sabina Irimie & Sabin Ioan Irimie, 2018. "Economic, Energetic, and Environmental Impact Evaluation of the Water Discharge Networks from Mining Works," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, January.
    20. Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Andrea Ciacci & Enrico Ivaldi, 2021. "Measuring Sustainable Development by Non-aggregative Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 101-122, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:11:p:14501-14520:d:57982. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.