IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i1p16-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving communication among stakeholders through ex-post transactional analysis -- case study on Romanian forestry

Author

Listed:
  • Dragoi, Marian
  • Popa, Bogdan
  • Blujdea, Viorel

Abstract

One of the most visible components of the Forestry Development Project, carried out between 2003 and 2009 by the World Bank and Romanian Government was "PR support, Awareness Campaign and Development of PR products", meant to improve the communication between all stakeholders involved in sustainable forest management. The awareness campaign mainly consisted of nine meetings with the forest owners and nine workshops with all stakeholders, i.e. representatives of the forest inspectorates, county headquarters of the national forest administration, mass media, forest landowners, forest managers, logging companies and local authorities, including police and gendarmerie. The discussions, facilitated in each meeting by the three authors, were recorded and the minutes produced there have been further used for diagnosing the main interaction bottlenecks occurred between stakeholders. These discussions have been examined through the transactional analysis method in order to find out the main communication problems needed to addresses at national, regional and local level by the representatives of the public authorities in charge with implementing and supervising the forest policy. The main results of this analysis consist of a list of problems supposed to generate conflicts of various kinds (legal, technical, managerial and communicational) in Romanian forestry. The study has also revealed some important and frequent pitfalls that jeopardize the communication between prevailing stakeholders. Explaining them and their root causes could be a very useful input for further PR training programs and for the academic curricula.

Suggested Citation

  • Dragoi, Marian & Popa, Bogdan & Blujdea, Viorel, 2011. "Improving communication among stakeholders through ex-post transactional analysis -- case study on Romanian forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 16-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:1:p:16-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00131-0
    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. Leskinen, Leena A., 2004. "Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 605-618, October.
    2. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    3. Aasetre, Jorund, 2006. "Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 81-92, January.
    4. Sandulescu, Emil & Wagner, John E. & Pailler, Sharon & Floyd, Donald W. & Davis, Craig J., 2007. "Policy analysis of a government-sanctioned management plan for a community-owned forest in Romania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1-2), pages 14-24, 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. Makrickiene, Ekaterina & Brukas, Vilis & Brodrechtova, Yvonne & Mozgeris, Gintautas & Sedmák, Róbert & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2019. "From command-and-control to good forest governance: A critical interpretive analysis of Lithuania and Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Marian Drăgoi & Veronica Toza, 2019. "Did Forestland Restitution Facilitate Institutional Amnesia? Some Evidence from Romanian Forest Policy," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Scriban, Ramona Elena & Nichiforel, Liviu & Bouriaud, Laura Gianina & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Cosofret, Vasile Cosmin & Barbu, Catalina Oana, 2019. "Governance of the forest restitution process in Romania: An application of the DPSIR model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 59-67.
    4. Popa, Bogdan & Niță, Mihai Daniel & Hălălișan, Aureliu Florin, 2019. "Intentions to engage in forest law enforcement in Romania: An application of the theory of planned behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    5. 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.
    6. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Lien, G. & Stordal, S. & Hardaker, J.B. & Asheim, L.J., 2007. "Risk aversion and optimal forest replanting: A stochastic efficiency study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1584-1592, September.
    9. Petr, Michal & Boerboom, Luc & Ray, Duncan & van der Veen, Anne, 2014. "An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-11.
    10. 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.
    11. Leonie Netter & Eike Luedeling & Cory Whitney, 2022. "Agroforestry and reforestation with the Gold Standard-Decision Analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Salles, Thiago Taglialegna & Nogueira, Denismar Alves & Beijo, Luiz Alberto & Silva, Liniker Fernandes da, 2019. "Bayesian approach and extreme value theory in economic analysis of forestry projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 64-71.
    13. Shabani, Nazanin & Akhtari, Shaghaygh & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2013. "Value chain optimization of forest biomass for bioenergy production: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 299-311.
    14. Scriban, Ramona Elena & Nichiforel, Liviu & Bouriaud, Laura Gianina & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Cosofret, Vasile Cosmin & Barbu, Catalina Oana, 2019. "Governance of the forest restitution process in Romania: An application of the DPSIR model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 59-67.
    15. Natalia Korcz & Emilia Janeczko & Agata Kobyłka, 2022. "The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, May.
    16. 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, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Scardina, Anthony V. & Mortimer, Michael J. & Dudley, Larkin, 2007. "Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA Forest Service public involvement processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 883-902, May.
    18. Tikkanen, Jukka & Isokaanta, Tarja & Pykalainen, Jouni & Leskinen, Pekka, 2006. "Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 139-152, November.
    19. Pappila, Minna, 2013. "Forest certification and trust — Different roles in different environments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 37-43.
    20. Mosayeb Dashtpeyma & Reza Ghodsi, 2021. "Forest Biomass and Bioenergy Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review on the Barriers and Enablers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.

    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:13:y:2011:i:1:p:16-23. 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.