Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?
Environmental problems are often complex and involve fundamental value contradictions. There is a need to explore whether a well-designed process can contribute to a legitimate decision ‘closure’ even in the presence of value conflicts. We examine why environmentalists did not accept a compromise between industrial forestry and full conservation in the case of some forestry debates in Northern Finland and the Liperinsuo site in particular. Contradictory value positions between the environmentalists and the Finnish state forestry enterprise can only partly explain the lack of legitimacy, because past decision-making processes form specific legacies affecting even the legitimacy of current decisions and compromises. By exploring the continuum of decision-making processes from the point of view of ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’, we identify some conditions for processes contributing to legitimate decision ‘closures’, including: 1) the inclusion of all the relevant participants, 2) the problems which the decision should solve are co-defined and mutually agreed on; 3) the timing of the necessary ‘closing down’ of the decision is mutually agreed on; 4) the processes are transparent, and 5) the decision ‘closures’ are not transformed from one scale to another without possibilities for participation. By nurturing these conditions through deliberate process design, capacity to legitimately ‘close down’ decisions in order to resolve complex and value-laden environmental conflicts will increase.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
- Eeva Berglund, 2001. "Facts, Beliefs and Biases: Perspectives on Forest Conservation in Finland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 833-849.
- Zachrisson, Anna & Beland Lindahl, Karin, 2013. "Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 39-46.
- repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:04:p:687-701_04 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ravikumar, Ashwin & Andersson, Krister & Larson, Anne M., 2013. "Decentralization and forest-related conflicts in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 80-86.
- Sarkki, Simo & Rönkä, Anna Reetta, 2012. "Neoliberalisations in Finnish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 152-159.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:50:y:2015:i:c:p:110-117. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.