IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v91y2020ics0264837716311632.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of public land governance from two Canadian provinces: How is the social agenda being met through sustainable forest management?

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, Lauren
  • Nadeau, Solange

Abstract

This article presents a comparative assessment of current spaces for public involvement in Crown (public) land management in the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. More specifically, it addresses the barriers to public participation by examining the agency-client relationship – specifically, through the theoretical lens of capture – as an impediment to the inclusion of values that are outside the traditional, technocratic management realm of public forest management. Without public input, the public’s needs, values, and desires are not articulated and the social side of sustainable forest management is likely to be neglected. Low levels of trust in public land management agencies in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, coupled with minimal space for public involvement, have created the perception of a policy network that is dominated by industry and/or government and provides minimal space for other interests. The primary research method is an online survey informed by forty-two interviews. The survey was administered to 89 key forestry stakeholders in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Participation observation and a document analysis are utilized to complement the survey. This research finds that (1) although survey participants come from diverse affiliations and two provinces with different forest policy and unique approaches to public participation, there is essential consensus of the need for an improvement of public involvement processes for public land; (2) trust in the forest industry and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is extremely low in both provinces. Even with recent participatory efforts in Nova Scotia, the trust level is lower than in the neighboring province of New Brunswick. Some participants connect this distrust to privileged access for certain interest groups and a closed policy network; (3) barriers to participatory processes differ between provinces, especially a fear of retribution, which is specific to New Brunswick; and (4) key stakeholders identify barriers to engagement that they perceive to be different for themselves and the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Lauren & Nadeau, Solange, 2020. "Perceptions of public land governance from two Canadian provinces: How is the social agenda being met through sustainable forest management?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837716311632
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716311632
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.041?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. Kabiri, Ngeta, 2016. "Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 511-517.
    2. Pulzl, Helga & Rametsteiner, Ewald, 2002. "Grounding international modes of governance into National Forest Programmes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 259-268, December.
    3. Gera, Weena, 2016. "Public participation in environmental governance in the Philippines: The challenge of consolidation in engaging the state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 501-510.
    4. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    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. Nam, Pham Phuong & Thanh Huyen, Phan Thi & Van Ha, Pham, 2021. "Factors affecting the management of public agricultural land fund in Gia Lam District, Hanoi City, Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(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. 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.
    2. Marzieh Ronaghi & Michael Reed & Sayed Saghaian, 2020. "The impact of economic factors and governance on greenhouse gas emission," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 153-172, April.
    3. Lei Liu & Yue Xu & Zhaotian Yang & Ying Li, 2023. "The interrelationship between environmental NGO development and environmental condition in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8487-8516, August.
    4. Paul Ofei-Manu & Satoshi Shimano, 2012. "In Transition towards Sustainability: Bridging the Business and Education Sectors of Regional Centre of Expertise Greater Sendai Using Education for Sustainable Development-Based Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Joshua Henkel & Georg Schwesinger, 2020. "Establishing Sustainable Consumption - How Future Policies Can Channel Consumer Preferences," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2007, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    6. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Arnouts, Rikke & van der Zouwen, Mariëlle & Arts, Bas, 2012. "Analysing governance modes and shifts — Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 43-50.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    9. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    10. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.
    11. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Wesselink, Anna & Paavola, Jouni, 2008. "WP1: Analysing multilevel water and biodiversity governance in their context. Report," UFZ Discussion Papers 5/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    14. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara, 2021. "Struggling for an ideal dialogue. An analysis of the regional dialogue processes within Sweden's first National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Maria Stella Righettini, 2021. "Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Amer Ait Sidhoum & K Hervé Dakpo & Laure Latruffe, 2022. "Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social sustainability on farms using a latent class frontier efficiency model: Evidence for Spanish crop farms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    18. Matthew Cohen & Arnim Wiek & Braden Kay & John Harlow, 2015. "Aligning Public Participation to Stakeholders’ Sustainability Literacy—A Case Study on Sustainable Urban Development in Phoenix, Arizona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Andrea K. Gerlak & Tanya Heikkila & Sharon L. Smolinski & Dave Huitema & Derek Armitage, 2018. "Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 335-371, September.
    20. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.

    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:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837716311632. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.