Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland

Participation is seen as an important aspect of sustainable forest management (SFM). Especially important are the policy processes, where the effectiveness of the policy is determined by the commitment of the stakeholders to the selected policy. There are, however, different opinions as to what cons...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forest policy and economics 2010-03, Vol.12 (3), p.213-222
Main Authors: Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
citizen participation
collaborative management
collective action
Commitment
Commitment Consensus Public participation Finland Forest policy Framing
community development
community forestry
Consensus
experts
Finland
forest management
Forest policy
foresters
forestry
Framing
participation
policy processes
Public participation
Regional Forest Programmes
stakeholders
surveys
sustainable forestry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Participation is seen as an important aspect of sustainable forest management (SFM). Especially important are the policy processes, where the effectiveness of the policy is determined by the commitment of the stakeholders to the selected policy. There are, however, different opinions as to what constitutes a successful participatory process. In this study, we analysed the stakeholder perspectives about proper participation process in Regional Forest Programme preparation in Finland using Q-methodology. We found four different perspectives: pragmatic consensus-seekers, reformers, expertise-oriented actors and participation sceptics. The pragmatists seek for consensus, but purely on traditional forestry issues. The reformers, on the other hand, wanted to introduce other aspects into the process and opposed the dominant position of the traditional forestry network in the RFP process. The expertise-oriented group was ready to discuss different aspects, but wanted to promote the power of experts. The sceptics wanted to allocate the minimum effort to participation. The results suggest that framing and organizing the process, reaching commitment, roles of different information, and the ways of taking into account the views of general public should be emphasized in future RFP's.
ISSN:1389-9341
1872-7050
DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006