Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Manuel John , Kristina Wirth , Anna Kaufmann , Hannah Ertelt , Theresa Frei
{"title":"Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers","authors":"Manuel John ,&nbsp;Kristina Wirth ,&nbsp;Anna Kaufmann ,&nbsp;Hannah Ertelt ,&nbsp;Theresa Frei","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent years, climate change and societal changes have increased the complexity of demands on multifunctional forest management, leading to new lines of conflict. Consequently, public forest management in particular seeks to improve communication and interaction with societal groups with which they previously have not been familiar. In our study, we apply the deliberative model of democracy to assess the suitability of silvicultural training sites (“marteloscopes”) for fostering deliberative communication on multifunctional forest management between foresters and young climate activists. Furthermore, we examine the interpretative frames emerging in this context. We adopt an exploratory study design, using participant observation and group discussions, which we analyze with sequential reconstructive methods. We find that marteloscope exercises generally support dialogue that meets the criteria of deliberate communication. We also observe a noticeable knowledge hierarchy, which presents a potential barrier to open deliberative processes. We identify three main interpretative frames brought by participants that in part challenge dominant forest frames: (1) forests as complex ecosystems (2) composed of living beings, and (3) sustainability as sufficiency, focused on timber consumption and the role of global market dynamics. Reflecting and acknowledging them could provide opportunities for improving communication between foresters and non-experts in times of climate change and other major transformations. Additionally, we encourage the use of settings conducive for informal, face-to-face deliberation to elicit and include perspectives that may not otherwise be represented in traditional governance structures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 103356"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124002107","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, climate change and societal changes have increased the complexity of demands on multifunctional forest management, leading to new lines of conflict. Consequently, public forest management in particular seeks to improve communication and interaction with societal groups with which they previously have not been familiar. In our study, we apply the deliberative model of democracy to assess the suitability of silvicultural training sites (“marteloscopes”) for fostering deliberative communication on multifunctional forest management between foresters and young climate activists. Furthermore, we examine the interpretative frames emerging in this context. We adopt an exploratory study design, using participant observation and group discussions, which we analyze with sequential reconstructive methods. We find that marteloscope exercises generally support dialogue that meets the criteria of deliberate communication. We also observe a noticeable knowledge hierarchy, which presents a potential barrier to open deliberative processes. We identify three main interpretative frames brought by participants that in part challenge dominant forest frames: (1) forests as complex ecosystems (2) composed of living beings, and (3) sustainability as sufficiency, focused on timber consumption and the role of global market dynamics. Reflecting and acknowledging them could provide opportunities for improving communication between foresters and non-experts in times of climate change and other major transformations. Additionally, we encourage the use of settings conducive for informal, face-to-face deliberation to elicit and include perspectives that may not otherwise be represented in traditional governance structures.
森林讨论:作为气候活动家和森林管理者交锋场所的马特罗普望远镜
近年来,气候变化和社会变革增加了对多功能森林管理需求的复杂性,导致了新的冲突。因此,公共森林管理部门特别寻求改善与社会群体的沟通和互动,而这些群体以前并不熟悉。在我们的研究中,我们运用民主议事模式来评估造林培训基地("马特罗普")是否适合促进林业工作者和年轻的气候活动家之间就多功能森林管理进行议事交流。此外,我们还研究了在此背景下出现的解释框架。我们采用了探索性研究设计,使用了参与观察和小组讨论,并通过顺序重构方法对其进行了分析。我们发现,"马特洛镜 "练习通常支持符合有意交流标准的对话。我们还观察到一个明显的知识层次结构,它是开放式商议过程的潜在障碍。我们发现参与者提出的三个主要解释框架在一定程度上挑战了主流的森林框架:(1) 森林是复杂的生态系统,(2) 由生物组成,(3) 可持续性是充足性,侧重于木材消耗和全球市场动态的作用。在气候变化和其他重大变革时期,反映和承认这些观点可以为改善林业工作者与非专家之间的交流提供机会。此外,我们鼓励利用有利于进行非正式、面对面讨论的场合,以征求和采纳那些在传统治理结构中可能没有代表的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信