IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v96y2018icp93-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Bethmann, Stephanie
  • Simminger, Eva
  • Baldy, Jana
  • Schraml, Ulrich

Abstract

Forestry institutions integrate divergent interests in forest uses into their management concepts, like recreation, timber production and nature protection. In this context, knowledge on public expectations of forestry is valuable to forest owners as well as administrations, especially in the face of the growing critical citizenship they encounter during their work. This paper examines findings from opinion surveys as well as studies of conflict and participation in order to describe the current dynamics in the relationship between forestry and the general public. It then explains in detail how a praxeological research design, grounded in American pragmatism, helps to conceptualize forest conflicts as interactional phenomena. The value of such an approach is exemplified through one case analysis from a broader “Sociocultural Forest Monitoring” carried out by institution anonymized. The article concludes with an assessment of the knowledge to be gained by the conceptualization of citizens' relationship to forestry as dynamic opinion formation with the help of a praxeological epistemology and methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:96:y:2018:i:c:p:93-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411730624X
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Aasetre, Jorund, 2006. "Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 81-92, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Idrissou, Latifou & van Paassen, Annemarie & Aarts, Noelle & Vodouhè, Simplice & Leeuwis, Cees, 2013. "Trust and hidden conflict in participatory natural resources management: The case of the Pendjari national park (PNP) in Benin," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 65-74.
    12. Siegner, Meike & Hagerman, Shannon & Kozak, Robert, 2018. "Going deeper with documents: A systematic review of the application of extant texts in social research on forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 128-135.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Logmani, Jacqueline & Krott, Max & Lecyk, Michal Tymoteusz & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 81-90.
    15. Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2012. "Confronting the demands of a deliberative public sphere with media constraints," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 71-80.
    16. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    17. Joyce, Linda A., 2003. "Improving the flow of scientific information across the interface of forest science and policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 339-347, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:96:y:2018:i:c:p:93-101. 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: (Haili He). 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.