IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v68y2016icp22-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of scientists in forest fire media discourse and its potential influence for policy-agenda setting in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Ekayani, Meti
  • Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho
  • Darusman, Dudung

Abstract

Forest fire is one of the most important issues discussed in international and national news media, because of its significant human and environmental impacts; these fires generate social, economic, and ecological problems that spread across national borders. Mediating these problems requires effective and applicable policy, formulated from a sound base of evidence. Thus, the quality of information is of primary importance in formulating appropriate forest fire combating policy. While the media is obligated to provide credible information, it often does so without scientific expertise. This study indicates that most interviewed stakeholders believe that scientists can deliver reliable information in policy agenda-setting, and therefore, the voices of scientists in the media have the potential to influence policy agenda-setting through their role as “issue advocates”. This study, however, confirms that the news media does not recognize the knowledge of scientists as the most reliable reference in forest fire discourse. The weak “knowledge utilization” of news' substance is reflected in the minimal coverage of scientists in media discourses. This study examines the presentation of scientists in forest fire media discourse and stakeholders' perceptions of this presentation, in order to analyze the role of scientists in forest fire media discourse and its potential to influence and set policy agendas in Indonesia.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekayani, Meti & Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Darusman, Dudung, 2016. "The role of scientists in forest fire media discourse and its potential influence for policy-agenda setting in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 22-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:68:y:2016:i:c:p:22-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115000027
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.001?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. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    2. Sadath, Nazmus & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Giessen, Lukas, 2013. "Framing the tiger — A biodiversity concern in national and international media reporting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 37-41.
    3. Grundmann, Reiner, 1999. "Transnationale Umweltpolitik zum Schutz der Ozonschicht: USA und Deutschland im Vergleich," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 37, number 37.
    4. 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.
    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. Susanti, Ari & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2016. "Development narratives, notions of forest crisis, and boom of oil palm plantations in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 130-139.
    2. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    3. Mota, Pedro Henrique Santos & Rocha, Samuel José Silva Soares da & Castro, Nero Lemos Martins de & Marcatti, Gustavo Eduardo & França, Luciano Cavalcante de Jesus & Schettini, Bruno Leão Said & Villan, 2019. "Forest fire hazard zoning in Mato Grosso State, Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Karnatz, Caroline & Kadam, Parag & Pfeuffer, Alexander & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2021. "The portrayal of forest certification in national and state newspapers of the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Sahide, Muhammad Alif K. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Supratman, Supratman & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Is Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-20.
    6. Yovi, Efi Yuliati & Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho, 2018. "An occupational ergonomics in the Indonesian state mandatory sustainable forest management instrument: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 27-35.

    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. Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Rahman, Sabrina, 2016. "Forest in crisis: 2 decades of media discourse analysis of Bangladesh print media," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 16-21.
    2. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    3. 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).
    4. Park, Mi Sun & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2016. "Framing forest conservation in the global media: An interest-based approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 7-15.
    5. Riedl, Marcel & Hrib, Michal & Jarský, Vilém & Jarkovská, Martina, 2018. "Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 71-79.
    6. Mangani, Andrea, 2021. "When does print media address deforestation? A quantitative analysis of major newspapers from US, UK, and Australia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    8. Weidner, Helmut, 2005. "Global equity versus public interest? The case of climate change policy in Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Civil Society and Transnational Networks SP IV 2005-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    10. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Thomas Hickmann, 2014. "Science–policy interaction in international environmental politics: an analysis of the ozone regime and the climate regime," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 21-44, January.
    12. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    13. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    14. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    17. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    18. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Sutterlüty, Andrea & Šimunović, Nenad & Hesser, Franziska & Stern, Tobias & Schober, Andreas & Schuster, Kurt Christian, 2018. "Influence of the geographical scope on the research foci of sustainable forest management: Insights from a content analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 142-150.
    20. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.

    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:68:y:2016:i:c:p:22-29. 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.