Manuel John , Kristina Wirth , Anna Kaufmann , Hannah Ertelt , Theresa Frei
{"title":"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","authors":"Manuel John , Kristina Wirth , Anna Kaufmann , Hannah Ertelt , 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":"{\"title\":\"Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers\",\"authors\":\"Manuel John , Kristina Wirth , Anna Kaufmann , Hannah Ertelt , 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}","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}
Forest deliberations: Marteloscopes as sites of encounter between climate activists and forest managers
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.
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.