IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v49y2014icp4-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A practice based approach to forest governance

Author

Listed:
  • Arts, Bas
  • Behagel, Jelle
  • Turnhout, Esther
  • de Koning, Jessica
  • van Bommel, Séverine

Abstract

‘Forest governance’ refers to new modes of regulation in the forest sector, such as decentralized, community-based and market-oriented policy instruments and management approaches. Its main theoretical basis consists of two mainstream models: rational choice and neo-institutionalism. Since these models rest upon problematic conceptualisations of ‘the social’, this paper proposes a so-called ‘practice based approach’, which offers a comprehensive understanding of social dynamics related to trees, forests and biodiversity. It tries to go beyond some of the old dualisms in social theory, such as subject and object, human and nature and agency and structure. Three sensitising concepts – situated agency, logic of practice and performativity – are introduced and their application is illustrated by a number of examples from forest governance practices: joint forest management in India, decentralized forest management in Bolivia and the construction of biodiversity datasets in Europe. The paper also addresses some of the criticisms the approach has received.

Suggested Citation

  • Arts, Bas & Behagel, Jelle & Turnhout, Esther & de Koning, Jessica & van Bommel, Séverine, 2014. "A practice based approach to forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 4-11.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:49:y:2014:i:c:p:4-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114000677
    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. Behera, Bhagirath & Engel, Stefanie, 2006. "Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 350-362, June.
    2. Arts, Bas, 2012. "Forests policy analysis and theory use: Overview and trends," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 7-13.
    3. Weber, Norbert, 2012. "Reflections on theories in forest policy: Testing, combining or building?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 102-108.
    4. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    5. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    6. George Busenberg, 2004. "Wildfire Management in the United States: The Evolution of a Policy Failure," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(2), pages 145-156, March.
    7. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    8. Dvora Yanow & Haridimos Tsoukas, 2009. "What is Reflection‐In‐Action? A Phenomenological Account," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1339-1364, December.
    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. repec:eee:wdevel:v:96:y:2017:i:c:p:315-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.
    3. Eero Palmujoki & Pekka Virtanen, 2016. "Global, National, or Market? Emerging REDD+ Governance Practices in Mozambique and Tanzania," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 59-78, February.
    4. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    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. Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Huttunen, Suvi, 2018. "Linking practices of multifunctional forestry to policy objectives: Case studies in Finland and the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 35-44.
    7. repec:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:32-:d:192240 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "The manifesto of post-institutionalism: institutional complexity research agenda," MPRA Paper 97662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Frolov, Daniil, 2018. "Постинституционализм: За Пределами Институционального Мейнстрима
      [Post-institutionalism: Beyond the Institutional Mainstream]
      ," MPRA Paper 90287, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Secco, Laura & Pisani, Elena & Da Re, Riccardo & Rogelja, Todora & Burlando, Catie & Vicentini, Kamini & Pettenella, Davide & Masiero, Mauro & Miller, David & Nijnjk, Maria, 2019. "Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 9-22.
    11. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "Постинституционализм: Программа Исследований За Пределами Институционального Мейнстрима
      [Post-institutionalism: research program beyond the institutional mainstream]
      ," MPRA Paper 92328, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:49:y:2014:i:c:p:4-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.