IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v28y2013icp52-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy

Author

Listed:
  • Valkeapää, Annukka
  • Karppinen, Heimo

Abstract

The goal of forest policy is to enhance sustainable production of the material and immaterial benefits of forests to serve the needs of all citizens. A theoretical model for explaining the formation of legitimacy in a certain political sector was developed and empirically tested in the context of Finnish forest policy. Nationwide mail survey data was used to determine the differences in the perceptions of forest policy by Finnish forest owners and other citizens. The questionnaire measured the legitimacy of the forest policy, the acceptance of laws, the justice of the procedures, the fairness of power relations, the acceptance of forestry operations and the competence in forest policy issues. Overall legitimacy was evaluated positively, and the forest owners considered forest policy in general to be more acceptable than other citizens did. The most criticized aspects of forest policy were the justice of the procedures and the use of clearcutting. Procedural justice and acceptance of forestry operations were the strongest explanatory factors for the legitimacy. Acceptance of the power relations of different stakeholder groups explained legitimacy for non-owners but not for forest owners. In both groups, forest policy competence led to a more negative evaluation of legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:52-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113000099
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. James R. Kluegel & David S. Mason, 2004. "Fairness matters: social justice and political legitimacy in post‐communist Europe," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 813-834.
    2. Karppinen, Heimo, 2005. "Forest owners' choice of reforestation method: an application of the theory of planned behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 393-409, March.
    3. Weatherford, M. Stephen, 1992. "Measuring Political Legitimacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 149-166, March.
    4. Appelstrand, Marie, 2002. "Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 281-290, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Coltman, Tim & Devinney, Timothy M. & Midgley, David F. & Venaik, Sunil, 2008. "Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1250-1262, December.
    7. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
    8. 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.
    9. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Kurttila, Mikko & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2021. "Private landowners’ preferences for trading forest landscape and recreational values: A choice experiment application in Kuusamo, Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Rantala, Salla & Swallow, Brent & Paloniemi, Riikka & Raitanen, Elina, 2020. "Governance of forests and governance of forest information: Interlinkages in the age of open and digital data," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. Kröger, Markus & Raitio, Kaisa, 2017. "Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 6-15.
    6. Grundel, Ida & Christenson, Nina & Dahlström, Margareta, 2022. "Identifying interests and values in forest areas through collaborative processes and landscape resource analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    7. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Borgström, Suvi, 2018. "Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-23.
    10. 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.
    11. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Koskela, Terhi, 2020. "Forest owners' future intentions for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    12. Xiaoshu Li & G. Andrew Stainback, 2020. "On-Site Experience Effect on Stakeholders’ Preferences of Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Primmer, Eeva & Paloniemi, Riikka & Similä, Jukka & Tainio, Anna, 2014. "Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-10.
    14. 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.
    15. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    16. Ranacher, L. & Lähtinen, K. & Järvinen, E. & Toppinen, A., 2017. "Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 180-189.
    17. Nenad Šimunović & Franziska Hesser & Tobias Stern, 2018. "Frame Analysis of ENGO Conceptualization of Sustainable Forest Management: Environmental Justice and Neoliberalism at the Core of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    18. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Samy Katumba & Julia Kadt & Mark Orkin & Paul Fatti, 2022. "Construction of a Reflective Quality of Life Index for Gauteng Province in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 373-408, November.
    5. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2018. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Preference: A Structural Equation Analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 151-163, March.
    6. Zhuomin Shi & Zaoying Kuang & Ning Yang, 2017. "Why it is hard to explain Chinese face?—FACE measurement models and its influence on ecological product preference," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    7. John S. Hill & Myung-Su Chae & Jinseo Park, 2012. "The Effects of Geography and Infrastructure on Economic Development and International Business Involvement," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 4(2), pages 91-113, December.
    8. Xi, Nannan & Hamari, Juho, 2020. "Does gamification affect brand engagement and equity? A study in online brand communities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 449-460.
    9. Grahame R. Dowling & Tayo Otubanjo, 2011. "Corporate and organizational identity: two sides of the same coin," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(3), pages 171-182, December.
    10. Sajtos, Laszlo & Magyar, Bertalan, 2016. "Auxiliary theories as translation mechanisms for measurement model specification," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3186-3191.
    11. Gyeongcheol Cho & Christopher Schlaegel & Heungsun Hwang & Younyoung Choi & Marko Sarstedt & Christian M. Ringle, 2022. "Integrated Generalized Structured Component Analysis: On the Use of Model Fit Criteria in International Management Research," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 569-609, August.
    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. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Yelena Popova & Sergejs Popovs, 2022. "Impact of Smart Economy on Smart Areas and Mediation Effect of National Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Schmidt, Holger J. & Mason, Roger & Steenkamp, Pieter & Mugobo, Virimai, 2017. "Does brand orientation contribute to retailers’ success? An empirical study in the South African market," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 210-222.
    17. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    18. Rogier van de Wetering & Tom Hendrickx & Sjaak Brinkkemper & Sherah Kurnia, 2021. "The Impact of EA-Driven Dynamic Capabilities, Innovativeness, and Structure on Organizational Benefits: A Variance and fsQCA Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    19. Baxter, Roger, 2009. "Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: A commentary essay," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(12), pages 1370-1377, December.
    20. 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.

    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:28:y:2013:i:c:p:52-59. 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.