IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v50y2015icp110-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?

Author

Listed:
  • Sarkki, Simo
  • Heikkinen, Hannu I.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:50:y:2015:i:c:p:110-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114001713
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.004?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Barabas, Jason, 2004. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 687-701, November.
    5. Sarkki, Simo & Rönkä, Anna Reetta, 2012. "Neoliberalisations in Finnish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 152-159.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Sarkki, Simo & Ficko, Andrej & Miller, David & Barlagne, Carla & Melnykovych, Mariana & Jokinen, Mikko & Soloviy, Ihor & Nijnik, Maria, 2019. "Human values as catalysts and consequences of social innovations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 33-44.
    3. Mäkelä, Marileena, 2017. "Environmental impacts and aspects in the forest industry: What kind of picture do corporate environmental reports provide?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 178-191.
    4. Sarkki, Simo, 2017. "Governance services: Co-producing human well-being with ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 82-91.
    5. Takala, Tuomo & Lehtinen, Ari & Tanskanen, Minna & Hujala, Teppo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2020. "Discoursal power and multi-objective forestry in the Finnish print media," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Kaakinen, Inka & Lehtinen, Ari, 2016. "A bridge that disconnects – On shared and divided socio-spatialities in the pulp mill conflict between Uruguay and Argentina," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 106-112.

    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. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I. & Herva, Vesa-Pekka & Saarinen, Jarkko, 2018. "Myths on local use of natural resources and social equity of land use governance: Reindeer herding in Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 322-331.
    2. Mancheva, Irina, 2018. "Which factors spur forest owners' collaboration over forest waters?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 54-63.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    6. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    7. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    8. Figueiredo, Paulo N., 2016. "Evolution of the short-fiber technological trajectory in Brazil's pulp and paper industry: The role of firm-level innovative capability-building and indigenous institutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Benjamin A. Lyons, 2019. "Discussion Network Activation: An Expanded Approach to Selective Exposure," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 32-41.
    10. Mäkelä, Marileena, 2017. "Environmental impacts and aspects in the forest industry: What kind of picture do corporate environmental reports provide?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 178-191.
    11. Verbrugge, Boris, 2015. "Decentralization, Institutional Ambiguity, and Mineral Resource Conflict in Mindanao, Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 449-460.
    12. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    13. Sarkki, Simo & Rönkä, Anna Reetta, 2012. "Neoliberalisations in Finnish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 152-159.
    14. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    15. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    16. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    17. Wilkes-Allemann, Jerylee & Ludvig, Alice & Hogl, Karl, 2020. "Innovation development in forest ecosystem services: A comparative mountain bike trail study from Austria and Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Jessica Cockburn & Eureta Rosenberg & Athina Copteros & Susanna Francina (Ancia) Cornelius & Notiswa Libala & Liz Metcalfe & Benjamin van der Waal, 2020. "A Relational Approach to Landscape Stewardship: Towards a New Perspective for Multi-Actor Collaboration," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Schaal, Gary S. & Ritzi, Claudia, 2009. "Empirische Deliberationsforschung," MPIfG Working Paper 09/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Carlsson, Julia & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin & Nordström, Eva-Maria, 2015. "Combining scientific and stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development — A forest landscape case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 122-134.

    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:50:y:2015:i:c:p:110-117. 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.