IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v172y2025ics1389934125000334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest condition and forest restoration as topics of online communication – An analysis of website performance of selected forest actors in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Liebal, Sandra
  • Köhler, Josephine
  • Weber, Norbert

Abstract

In recent years, many actors in Germany claimed in debates how forests should be treated in future, e.g. by stating own positions, providing information, and offering participative actions like tree planting events or educational programs. However, also conflicting views and beliefs of different forest actor groups have become apparent in their communication, leading to e.g. fierce debates in TV and social media or protest campaigns against the forest sector. Although knowledge alone is not sufficient to solve conflicts and find consensus solutions, evidence-based knowledge would be beneficial for the course of such discussions as well as for good political decision making. Research so far has pointed out to a crucial need for information on the topics of forest condition and forest restoration. The increasing importance of online media suggests that a corresponding range of information should also be available online, e.g. on websites. Accordingly, this study focuses on websites as channels for direct-to-consumer communication and conducts a media analysis with special emphasis on (i) how much information on the topic is provided by different forest-related actors in Germany on their websites (content) and (ii) how well this information is adapted to the needs of the website users (performance). For website analysis, we refer to the concept of user experience (UX).

Suggested Citation

  • Liebal, Sandra & Köhler, Josephine & Weber, Norbert, 2025. "Forest condition and forest restoration as topics of online communication – An analysis of website performance of selected forest actors in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000334
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000334
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103454?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. Niemela, Jari & Young, Juliette & Alard, Didier & Askasibar, Miren & Henle, Klaus & Johnson, Richard & Kurttila, Mikko & Larsson, Tor-Bjorn & Matouch, Simone & Nowicki, Peter & Paiva, Rosa & Portoghes, 2005. "Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 877-890, November.
    2. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2021. "Developing the persona method to increase the commitment of non-industrial private forest owners in French forest policy priorities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. Elomina, Jerbelle & Pülzl, Helga, 2021. "How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Schultz, Courtney A. & Mattor, Katherine M. & Moseley, Cassandra, 2016. "Aligning policies to support forest restoration and promote organizational change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 195-203.
    5. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    6. Pregernig, Michael, 2000. "Putting science into practice: the diffusion of scientific knowledge exemplified by the Austrian `Research Initiative Against Forest Decline'," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 165-176, August.
    7. Wilkes-Allemann, Jerylee & Deuffic, Philippe & Jandl, Robert & Westin, Kerstin & Lieberherr, Eva & Foldal, Cecilie & Lidestav, Gun & Weiss, Gerhard & Zabel, Astrid & Živojinović, Ivana & Pecurul-Botin, 2021. "Communication campaigns to engage (non-traditional) forest owners: A European perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara, 2021. "Struggling for an ideal dialogue. An analysis of the regional dialogue processes within Sweden's first National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Miriam J. Metzger, 2007. "Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2078-2091, November.
    10. C. Nadine Wathen & Jacquelyn Burkell, 2002. "Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(2), pages 134-144.
    11. Buijs, Arjen & Lawrence, Anna, 2013. "Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 104-111.
    12. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    13. 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).
    14. Zaltman, Gerald, 2000. "Consumer Researchers: Take a Hike!," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 423-428, March.
    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. Riemann, Lena, 2025. "Effective communication about forests and trees: An analytical framework for communication among segmented audiences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Wonchan Choi, 2020. "Older adultsʼ credibility assessment of online health information: An exploratory study using an extended typology of web credibility," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1295-1307, November.
    4. Grilli, Gianluca & Curtis, John & Hynes, Stephen & O'Reilly, Paul, 2017. "Anglers’ views on stock conservation: Sea Bass angling in Ireland," Papers WP578, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    5. 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.
    6. Assmuth, Aino & Autto, Hilja & Halonen, Kirsi-Maria & Haltia, Emmi & Huttunen, Suvi & Lintunen, Jussi & Lonkila, Annika & Nieminen, Tiina M. & Ojanen, Paavo & Peltoniemi, Mikko & Pietilä, Kaisa & Pohj, 2024. "Forest carbon payments: A multidisciplinary review of policy options for promoting carbon storage in EU member states," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    7. Yan Zhang & Jiaying Liu & Shijie Song, 2023. "The design and evaluation of a nudge‐based interface to facilitate consumers' evaluation of online health information credibility," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(7), pages 828-845, July.
    8. 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).
    9. Payal S. Kapoor & K.R. Jayasimha & Ashish Sadh, 2013. "Brand-related, Consumer to Consumer, Communication via Social Media," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 2(1), pages 43-59, January.
    10. Wang, Weiye & Zhai, Daye & Li, Xinyang & Fang, Haowen & Yang, Yuanyuan, 2024. "Conflicts in mangrove protected areas through the actor-centred power framework - Insights from China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. Nanae Tanemura & Tsuyoshi Chiba, 2022. "The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Leo-Paul Dana & Demetris Vrontis & Ranjan Chaudhuri & Sheshadri Chatterjee, 2023. "Entrepreneurship Strategy through Social Commerce Platform: An Empirical Approach Using Contagion Theory and Information Adoption Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-16, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    15. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    16. Rosillo-Díaz, Elena & Muñoz-Rosas, Juan Francisco & Blanco-Encomienda, Francisco Javier, 2024. "Impact of heuristic–systematic cues on the purchase intention of the electronic commerce consumer through the perception of product quality," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    17. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    18. Kaufmann, Nicholas & Carolus, Thomas & Starzmann, Ralf, 2019. "Turbines for modular tidal current energy converters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 451-460.
    19. P.W.J. de Bijl & Helanya Fourie, 2019. "The energy transition: Does ownership matter for realizing public interest objectives?," Working Papers 19-24, Utrecht School of Economics.
    20. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.

    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:s1389934125000334. 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.