IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i3p213-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Kangas, A.
  • Saarinen, N.
  • Saarikoski, H.
  • Leskinen, L.A.
  • Hujala, T.
  • Tikkanen, J.

Abstract

Participation is seen as an important aspect of sustainable forest management (SFM). Especially important are the policy processes, where the effectiveness of the policy is determined by the commitment of the stakeholders to the selected policy. There are, however, different opinions as to what constitutes a successful participatory process. In this study, we analysed the stakeholder perspectives about proper participation process in Regional Forest Programme preparation in Finland using Q-methodology. We found four different perspectives: pragmatic consensus-seekers, reformers, expertise-oriented actors and participation sceptics. The pragmatists seek for consensus, but purely on traditional forestry issues. The reformers, on the other hand, wanted to introduce other aspects into the process and opposed the dominant position of the traditional forestry network in the RFP process. The expertise-oriented group was ready to discuss different aspects, but wanted to promote the power of experts. The sceptics wanted to allocate the minimum effort to participation. The results suggest that framing and organizing the process, reaching commitment, roles of different information, and the ways of taking into account the views of general public should be emphasized in future RFP's.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:3:p:213-222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(09)00187-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808, Decembrie.
    3. Leskinen, Leena A., 2004. "Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 605-618, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Appelstrand, Marie, 2002. "Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 281-290, December.
    6. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    7. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    8. Jayanath Ananda, 2004. "Implementing participatory approaches in formulating regional forest policy," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(4), pages 398-409.
    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. 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.
    2. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    3. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    4. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    5. 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.
    6. Stjernström Olof & Pettersson Örjan & Karlsson Svante, 2018. "How Can Sweden Deal with Forest Management and Municipal Planning in the System of Ongoing Land-Use and Multilevel Planning?," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 23-37, March.
    7. Marlene Marques & Keith M. Reynolds & Susete Marques & Marco Marto & Steve Paplanus & José G. Borges, 2021. "A Participatory and Spatial Multicriteria Decision Approach to Prioritize the Allocation of Ecosystem Services to Management Units," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Mi Sun Park & Hyowon Lee, 2016. "Legal Opportunities for Public Participation in Forest Management in the Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Lindstad, Berit H, 2018. "‘What's in it for me?’ — Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 80-86.
    17. 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.
    18. Roos, Anders & Eggers, Jeannette & Mark-Herbert, Cecilia & Lindhagen, Anders, 2018. "Using von Thünen rings and service-dominant logic in balancing forest ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 622-632.
    19. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Subhan Mollick, Abdus & Khalilur Rahman, Md. & Nabiul Islam Khan, Md. & Nazmus Sadath, Md., 2018. "Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: A case study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 123-137.
    25. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2012. "Confronting the demands of a deliberative public sphere with media constraints," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 71-80.
    5. 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.
    6. Hansmann, Ralf & Koellner, Thomas & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Influence of consumers' socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 239-250, April.
    7. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    8. 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.
    9. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Paul Sylvestre & Tarah Wright & Kate Sherren, 2014. "A Tale of Two (or More) Sustainabilities: A Q Methodology Study of University Professors’ Perspectives on Sustainable Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Borgström, Suvi, 2018. "Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-23.
    19. Natalia Korcz & Emilia Janeczko & Agata Kobyłka, 2022. "The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, May.
    20. 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.

    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:12:y:2010:i:3:p:213-222. 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.