IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v172y2025ics1389934125000267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calling into the void? German forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter. A case study to operationalize the analysis of discursive power in hybrid media systems

Author

Listed:
  • Mack, Philipp
  • Wallin, Ida
  • Zwickel, Mariella Susann
  • Pfistner, Jonas
  • König, Lena
  • Kleinschmit, Daniela

Abstract

Forest dieback 2.0 is the common term for describing climate change-related forest damages that sparked a nation-wide debate in Germany starting in 2018. Referring to the “first” forest dieback in the 1980s that inspired environmental movements and policy changes, raises questions concerning today's mobilization potential. Political communication has been profoundly transformed, mainly through the spread of digital media. To understand the current debate, it is thus crucial to consider the complex entanglements in hybrid media systems. We contribute to the operationalization of analyzing discursive power in hybrid media systems, through Twitter-actor-networks as well as tweet-hyperlink-networks, representing a communication space where older and newer media logics blend. Results suggest a scattered debate characterized by insulated communication networks of few central actors. Whereas forestry frames dominate original tweets, nature conservation frames are more likely to be amplified through retweets. Despite having largest number of followers, legacy media actors show low centralities in the Twitter-network. However, their influence must be seen in regard to the referred hyperlinks. Interactions between tweets and hyperlinks revealed different mechanisms for how frames are introduced and amplified. Besides mainly following the cleavage between forestry and nature conservationists, alternative frames instrumentalize forest damages to call for climate action or climate change skepticism. Despite these controversies and insulated communication, the forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter does not appear to be destructively polarized. Nevertheless, further research needs to carefully examine the polarization potential. Due to the limited outreach, however, the Twitter debate largely seems like a calling into the void.

Suggested Citation

  • Mack, Philipp & Wallin, Ida & Zwickel, Mariella Susann & Pfistner, Jonas & König, Lena & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2025. "Calling into the void? German forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter. A case study to operationalize the analysis of discursive power in hybrid media systems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000267
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000267
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103447?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    2. Anuja Majmundar & Jon-Patrick Allem & Tess Boley Cruz & Jennifer Beth Unger, 2018. "The Why We Retweet scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    3. John, Manuel & Wirth, Kristina & Kaufmann, Anna & Ertelt, Hannah & Frei, Theresa, 2024. "Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Dorian Arifi & Bernd Resch & Jan Kinne & David Lenz, 2023. "Innovation in hyperlink and social media networks: Comparing connection strategies of innovative companies in hyperlink and social media networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-28, March.
    5. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    6. Elena Milani & Emma Weitkamp & Peter Webb, 2020. "The Visual Vaccine Debate on Twitter: A Social Network Analysis," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 364-375.
    7. Borrass, Lars & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-23.
    8. Felix Bossner & Melanie Nagel, 2020. "Discourse Networks and Dual Screening: Analyzing Roles, Content and Motivations in Political Twitter Conversations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 311-325.
    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. Kai-Cheng Yang & Emilio Ferrara & Filippo Menczer, 2022. "Botometer 101: social bot practicum for computational social scientists," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1511-1528, November.
    11. Ekström, Hanna & Danley, Brian & Clough, Yann & Droste, Nils, 2024. "Barking up the wrong tree? - A guide to forest owner typology methods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    12. Max Falkenberg & Alessandro Galeazzi & Maddalena Torricelli & Niccolò Di Marco & Francesca Larosa & Madalina Sas & Amin Mekacher & Warren Pearce & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Andrea Baronc, 2022. "Growing polarization around climate change on social media," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(12), pages 1114-1121, December.
    13. Mathieu Jacomy & Tommaso Venturini & Sebastien Heymann & Mathieu Bastian, 2014. "ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Völker, Teresa & Saldivia Gonzatti, Daniel, 2024. "Discourse Networks of the Far Right: How Far-Right Actors Become Mainstream in Public Debates," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 41(3), pages 353-372.
    15. Warren Pearce & Sabine Niederer & Suay Melisa Özkula & Natalia Sánchez Querubín, 2019. "The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), March.
    16. Ficko, Andrej & Lidestav, Gun & Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Karppinen, Heimo & Zivojinovic, Ivana & Westin, Kerstin, 2019. "European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-31.
    17. Felix Bossner & Melanie Nagel, 2020. "Discourse Networks and Dual Screening: Analyzing Roles, Content and Motivations in Political Twitter Conversations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 311-325.
    18. 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.
    19. Mäder, Alexander & Bachinger, Monika & Ziermann, Andreas & Harprecht, Patricia & Kromrey, Volker & Schlemmer, Franziska, 2025. "Social media, deliberative communication and conflict management: Reflections based on the example case of Freiburg Im Breisgau (Germany)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    20. Mack, Philipp & Kremer, Jakob & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2023. "Forest dieback reframed and revisited? Forests (re)negotiated in the German media between forestry and nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    21. Elena Milani & Emma Weitkamp & Peter Webb, 2020. "The Visual Vaccine Debate on Twitter: A Social Network Analysis," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 364-375.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. John, Manuel & Wirth, Kristina & Kaufmann, Anna & Ertelt, Hannah & Frei, Theresa, 2024. "Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Baulenas, Eulàlia, 2021. "She’s a Rainbow: Forest and water policy and management integration in Germany, Spain and Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Maier, Carolin & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest management: A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 14-29.
    4. Mack, Philipp & Kremer, Jakob & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2023. "Forest dieback reframed and revisited? Forests (re)negotiated in the German media between forestry and nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Baulenas, Eulàlia & Sotirov, Metodi, 2020. "Cross-sectoral policy integration at the forest and water nexus: National level instrument choices and integration drivers in the European Union," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Lovrić, Marko & Torralba, Mario & Orsi, Francesco & Pettenella, Davide & Mann, Carsten & Geneletti, Davide & Plieninger, Tobias & Primmer, Eeva & Hernandez-Morcillo, Monica & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & , 2025. "Mind the income gap: Income from wood production exceed income from providing diverse ecosystem services from Europe’s forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Makrickiene, Ekaterina & Brukas, Vilis & Živojinović, Ivana & Dobšinská, Zuzana, 2025. "Three decades of forest policy studies in the countries in the former socialist countries of Europe: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    8. Sotirov, Metodi & Blum, Mareike & Storch, Sabine & Selter, Andy & Schraml, Ulrich, 2017. "Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 256-268.
    9. Borrass, Lars & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-23.
    10. Bayne, Karen M. & Grant, Andrea, 2024. "Who cares what happens with planted forests? A public typology to assist community engagement and communication," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.
    12. Lodin, Isak & Brukas, Vilis, 2021. "Ideal vs real forest management: Challenges in promoting production-oriented silvicultural ideals among small-scale forest owners in southern Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Juutinen, Artti & Haeler, Elena & Jandl, Robert & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Mäkipää, Raisa & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Tolvanen, Anne & Vi, 2022. "Common preferences of European small-scale forest owners towards contract-based management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Stefka Schmid & Katrin Hartwig & Robert Cieslinski & Christian Reuter, 2024. "Digital Resilience in Dealing with Misinformation on Social Media during COVID-19," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 477-499, April.
    15. Shreya Dubey & Marijn H. C. Meijers & Eline S. Smit & Edith G. Smit, 2024. "Beyond climate change? Environmental discourse on the planetary boundaries in Twitter networks," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(5), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    17. Holopainen, Jani & Mattila, Osmo & Pöyry, Essi & Parvinen, Petri, 2020. "Applying design science research methodology in the development of virtual reality forest management services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Florentin Gloetzl & Ernest Aigner, 2015. "Pluralism in the Market of Science? A citation network analysis of economic research at universities in Vienna," Ecological Economics Papers ieep5, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    20. Kamil Yilmaz, 2018. "Bank Volatility Connectedness in South East Asia," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1807, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000267. 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.