IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v99y2019icp59-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governance of the forest restitution process in Romania: An application of the DPSIR model

Author

Listed:
  • Scriban, Ramona Elena
  • Nichiforel, Liviu
  • Bouriaud, Laura Gianina
  • Barnoaiea, Ionut
  • Cosofret, Vasile Cosmin
  • Barbu, Catalina Oana

Abstract

Over the last 25years, the post-communist countries have encompassed important changes in ownership because of the transition from a centralised regime to an open market economy. Following the implementation of three different land restitution laws, almost 51% of the Romanian forestlands are currently in non-state ownership. The paper uses the DPSIR (Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) framework to analyse the forest restitution governance process and its impact on resource management outcomes. We have analysed the social and political environment of the forest restitution (Driving forces), the current and the past structure of the private forests (State), the ecological, economic and social effects of restitution (Impacts) and the institutional tools used in private forests (Responses). Data collection techniques combined the scrutiny of literature on forest privatisation with a case study analysis based on remote sensing, field work inventory and questionnaires. The study analyses the situation of small scale forest tenures (less than 1ha) given back to the former owners per the first law of land restitution (Law 18/1991). The results show that the forest restitution has been used as a trade-off between politicians' interest in winning political capital and owner's interest in getting short-term benefits from the forest. Despite the highly regulatory setting aiming to preserve the traditional rules of forest management, anthropic disturbances have affected on a large scale the private managed forests, while the policy responses were not able to encompass the new challenges brought by the changing ownership structure. The analysis concludes that the current policy responses are strengthening even more the regulatory framework but as reaction to a new policy goal: to limit the law infringements and the corruption created by the failure of enforcing the command and control instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:99:y:2019:i:c:p:59-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117301776
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.018?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Johannes Stahl & Thomas Sikor & Stefan Dorondel, 2009. "The institutionalisation of property rights in Albanian and Romanian biodiversity conservation," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1), pages 57-73.
    4. Irimie, Doru Leonard & Essmann, Hans Friedrich, 2009. "Forest property rights in the frame of public policies and societal change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 95-101, March.
    5. Glück, Peter & Avdibegovic, Mersudin & Cabaravdic, Azra & Nonic, Dragan & Petrovic, Nenad & Posavec, Stjepan & Stojanovska, Makedonka, 2010. "The preconditions for the formation of private forest owners' interest associations in the Western Balkan Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 250-263, April.
    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. Lenka Halušková, 2022. "The Slovak forest policy arrangement: Post-1989 residues and changes," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(10), pages 395-412.
    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. Vasile Iosifescu & Marian Drăgoi, 2023. "Triggers and Halts of Professional Mobility in Public Companies: A Case Study of the Romanian Forest Administration," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Gohari, Alireza & Savari, Peyman & Eslamian, Saeid & Etemadi, Nematollah & Keilmann-Gondhalekar, Daphne, 2022. "Developing a system dynamic plus framework for water-land-society nexus modeling within urban socio-hydrologic systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Elena Cervelli & Stefania Pindozzi & Emilia Allevato & Luigi Saulino & Roberto Silvestro & Ester Scotto di Perta & Antonio Saracino, 2022. "Landscape Planning Integrated Approaches to Support Post-Wildfire Restoration in Natural Protected Areas: The Vesuvius National Park Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Yoon, Tae Kyung & Myeong, Ji Yong & Lee, Yuju & Choi, Yun Eui & Lee, Seonghun & Lee, Sugwang & Byun, Chaeho, 2024. "Are you okay with overtourism in forests? Path between crowding perception, satisfaction, and management action of trail visitors in South Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Nichiforel, Liviu & Deuffic, Philippe & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Weiss, Gerhard & Hujala, Teppo & Keary, Kevin & Lawrence, Anna & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Górriz-, 2020. "Two decades of forest-related legislation changes in European countries analysed from a property rights perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. Eleni Zafeiriou & Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos & Veronika Andrea & Garyfallos Arabatzis, 2023. "Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation in Eastern Europe: a panel cointegration analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9267-9287, September.
    9. Andra-Cosmina Albulescu & Michael Manton & Daniela Larion & Per Angelstam, 2022. "The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-29, July.
    10. Nichiforel, Liviu & Duduman, Gabriel & Scriban, Ramona Elena & Popa, Bogdan & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Drăgoi, Marian, 2021. "Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Bottaro, Giorgia & Liagre, Ludwig & Pettenella, Davide, 2024. "The Forest Sector in EU Member States' National Recovery and Resilience Plans: a preliminary analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Alexandru Giurca & Liviu Nichiforel & Petru Tudor Stăncioiu & Marian Drăgoi & Daniel-Paul Dima, 2022. "Unlocking Romania’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Potential: Knowledge-Action-Gaps and the Way Forward," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Xiaoyong Li & Giuseppe T. Cirella & Yali Wen & Yi Xie, 2020. "Farmers’ Intentions to Lease Forestland: Evidence from Rural China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    3. Sorin Geacu & Monica Dumitraşcu & Ines Grigorescu, 2018. "On the Biogeographical Significance of Protected Forest Areas in Southern Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Štěrbová, Martina & Stojanovski, Vladimir & Weiss, Gerhard & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2019. "Innovating in a traditional sector: Innovation in forest harvesting in Slovakia and Macedonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. Theesfeld, Insa & Pirscher, Frauke (ed.), 2011. "Perspectives on institutional change - water management in Europe," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 58, number 109519.
    8. Roser Rodríguez-Carreras & Xavier Úbeda & Marcos Francos & Claudia Marco, 2020. "After the Wildfires: The Processes of Social Learning of Forest Owners’ Associations in Central Catalonia, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, July.
    9. Speelman, Stijn & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan, 2013. "Heterogeneous preferences for water rights reforms among smallholder irrigators in South Africa," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Speelman, Stijn & Veettil, Prakashan Chellatan, 2012. "Comparing the scope for irrigation water rights reforms in India and South Africa," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126731, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Goldstein, Brita & Crandall, Mindy S. & Kelly, Erin Clover, 2023. "“The cost of doing business”: Private rights, public resources, and the resulting diversity of state-level forestry policies in the U.S," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Min Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Yuge Wang & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Quanxing Meng, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Ecological Property Rights to Trigger Farmers’ Investment Behavior—An Example of Confluence Area of Heihe Reservoir, Shaanxi, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    14. Nichiforel, Liviu & Keary, Kevin & Deuffic, Philippe & Weiss, Gerhard & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Winkel, Georg & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Gatto, Paola & Gorriz Mi, 2018. "How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 535-552.
    15. Šálka, Jaroslav & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Hricová, Zuzana, 2016. "Factors of political power — The example of forest owners associations in Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 88-98.
    16. Andra-Cosmina Albulescu & Michael Manton & Daniela Larion & Per Angelstam, 2022. "The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-29, July.
    17. Weiss, Gerhard & Hansen, Eric & Ludvig, Alice & Nybakk, Erlend & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Innovation governance in the forest sector: Reviewing concepts, trends and gaps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    18. Dastan Bamwesigye & Raymond Chipfakacha & Evans Yeboah, 2022. "Forest and Land Rights at a Time of Deforestation and Climate Change: Land and Resource Use Crisis in Uganda," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. 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).
    20. Roy, Anjan Kumer Dev & Alam, Khorshed & Gow, Jeff, 2012. "A review of the role of property rights and forest policies in the management of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 46-53.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:99:y:2019:i:c:p:59-67. 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.