IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v89y2018icp31-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities

Author

Listed:
  • Kozová, Mária
  • Dobšinská, Zuzana
  • Pauditšová, Eva
  • Tomčíková, Ivana
  • Rakytová, Iveta

Abstract

Current political trends and scholarly research increasingly promotes network and participatory governance in multi-level systems as a way to more sustainable and effective environmental policy. In Slovakia best practice knowledge on shaping and implementing participatory processes is scarce. The main aim of the article is to assess the role of various stakeholders in the processes of participatory and network governance in urban forests in Slovakia. Based on selected case studies critical factors of success or failure in urban forestry at local level were identified. The methodological approach consisted of combination of multiple research methods. The main data sources for the qualitative part were expert structural interviews and complemented by desk study of relevant scientific literature, strategic documents, and personal observation and own findings from previous research projects on public participation. At national and regional levels open, continuous and initiatively functioning network is present and influences decision making. The result of the cooperation among various stakeholders at the local level most frequently takes the form of positive experience sharing from the implementation of community and civic projects, but it can also be beneficial to promote alternative proposals in strategic documents and development plans. In Slovakia, companies of municipal forests organize participatory processes in collaboration with local self-government, local and regional state government, nature conservation agencies, community activists and NGOs and enhance participation at regional and local level. The results thus show that difference between success and failure in many participatory processes is often unclear especially if a large number of stakeholders take part in the activities and their interests might differ. The crucial factor for the success or failure of the complex participatory process is to ensure the sustainability of the achieved goal or result.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:89:y:2018:i:c:p:31-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116303112
    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. 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.
    2. Arka Pandit & Zhongming Lu & John C. Crittenden, 2015. "Managing the Complexity of Urban Systems," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(2), pages 201-204, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, Irina & Buttoud, Gerard, 2006. "Assessment of an iterative process: The double spiral of re-designing participation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 529-541, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Kangas, Jyrki & Store, Ron & Kangas, Annika, 2005. "Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 603-614, May.
    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. Satyal, Poshendra, 2018. "Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 83-96.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    11. 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.
    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. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    19. 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.
    20. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.

    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:89:y:2018:i:c:p:31-41. 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: (Nithya Sathishkumar). 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.