IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v89y2018icp80-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘What's in it for me?’ — Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve

Author

Listed:
  • Lindstad, Berit H

Abstract

Stakeholder participation in forest policy processes has over years received political and scientific attention. This empirical study brings in a dynamic element, exploring how and why participation change as policies evolve. Two Norwegian policy cases serve to contrast participation by environmental organisations (ENGOs) and forest owner organisations (FOs) over time. The policy arrangement approach (PAA) is used as analytical framework, first, to explore changes in coalitions, rules of game, power constellations, and discourses for each of the policy cases. Second, an initial exploration is offered on how changes in the PAA dimensions affect the assessments of ‘what's in it for me’ for ENGOs versus FOs. The results indicate that when standards for sustainable forest management are implemented, the value for ENGOs to participate in standard revision is decreasing, while in forest protection, the ENGOs chose to participate in a coalition requesting more money for voluntary protection, even after being excluded from identifying interesting areas for protection. Combining evolving policies and participation based on ‘what's in it for me’ help explain why participation changes over time. The findings provide alternative perspectives on former work presenting continued participation as a challenge and important messages related to future forest policy analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindstad, Berit H, 2018. "‘What's in it for me?’ — Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 80-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:89:y:2018:i:c:p:80-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117300059
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.003?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. Bas Arts & Pieter Leroy & Jan Tatenhove, 2006. "Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 93-106, June.
    2. Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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. 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.
    2. Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo, 2018. "The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: A case of Estonian forestry policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 54-62.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    6. Jia Li & Bettina Bluemling & Arthur P. J. Mol & Thomas Herzfeld, 2014. "Stagnating Jatropha Biofuel Development in Southwest China: An Institutional Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    8. Elvira Tarsitano & Simona Giordano & Gianluigi de Gennaro & Annalisa Turi & Giovanni Ronco & Lucia Parchitelli, 2023. "Participatory Planning for the Drafting of a Regional Law on the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Winfried Osthorst, 2020. "Tensions in Urban Transitions. Conceptualizing Conflicts in Local Climate Policy Arrangements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    11. Carmen Arguedas & Dietrich Earnhart & Sandra Rousseau, 2017. "Non-uniform implementation of uniform standards," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 159-183, April.
    12. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    13. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee & Jeremy Rayner, 2014. "The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12.
    14. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    15. 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.
    16. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    17. Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
    18. Veenman, Sietske & Liefferink, Duncan & Arts, Bas, 2009. "A short history of Dutch forest policy: The 'de-institutionalisation' of a policy arrangement," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 202-208, May.
    19. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Dang, Thi Kim Phung & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Arts, Bas, 2018. "Forest devolution in Vietnam: From rhetoric to performance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 760-774.

    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:89:y:2018:i:c:p:80-86. 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.