TY - JOUR
T1 - Integrating ecosystem services in power analysis in forest governance
T2 - a comparison across nine European countries
AU - Juerges, Nataly
AU - Arts, Bas
AU - Masiero, Mauro
AU - Başkent, Emin Z.
AU - Borges, José G.
AU - Brodrechtova, Yvonne
AU - Brukas, Vilis
AU - Canadas, Maria João
AU - Carvalho, Pedro Ochôa
AU - Corradini, Giulia
AU - Corrigan, Edwin
AU - Felton, Adam
AU - Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke
AU - Krott, Max
AU - van Laar, Jim
AU - Lodin, Isak
AU - Lundholm, Anders
AU - Makrickienė, Ekaterina
AU - Marques, Marlene
AU - Mendes, Américo
AU - Mozgeris, Gintautas
AU - Novais, Ana
AU - Pettenella, Davide
AU - Pivoriūnas, Nerijus
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Within forest governance research, the transfer of power from governmental actors to civil society and market actors has been subject to intense scientific debate. We move forward on this debate by analyzing how ongoing transformations and power shifts in forest governance affect the power relations of actors with interest in various ecosystem services (ESs) in nine countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Turkey). In order to examine power resources of actors, we triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, document analysis, and participatory observations. Governmental actors (with various interests in ESs) were the most powerful actors in most countries, and thus drove forest management. Our analysis shows that the power relations of actors with interest in different forest ESs, varied within the nine countries, though many similarities existed. Governmental, market, and civil society actors differed in their capacity to apply the power strategies “coercion”, “(dis)incentives”, and “dominant information”, to realize their interests in ESs. In Lithuania, Slovakia and Turkey, governmental actors relied mostly on coercion; in the Netherlands on incentives; and in Sweden on dominant information. In Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal governmental actors relied on a mix of coercion, incentives, and dominant information. Market actors in all countries relied mostly on incentives, and civil society actors on dominant information as their power strategy.
AB - Within forest governance research, the transfer of power from governmental actors to civil society and market actors has been subject to intense scientific debate. We move forward on this debate by analyzing how ongoing transformations and power shifts in forest governance affect the power relations of actors with interest in various ecosystem services (ESs) in nine countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Turkey). In order to examine power resources of actors, we triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, document analysis, and participatory observations. Governmental actors (with various interests in ESs) were the most powerful actors in most countries, and thus drove forest management. Our analysis shows that the power relations of actors with interest in different forest ESs, varied within the nine countries, though many similarities existed. Governmental, market, and civil society actors differed in their capacity to apply the power strategies “coercion”, “(dis)incentives”, and “dominant information”, to realize their interests in ESs. In Lithuania, Slovakia and Turkey, governmental actors relied mostly on coercion; in the Netherlands on incentives; and in Sweden on dominant information. In Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal governmental actors relied on a mix of coercion, incentives, and dominant information. Market actors in all countries relied mostly on incentives, and civil society actors on dominant information as their power strategy.
KW - Actor-centred power
KW - Ecosystem services trade-off
KW - Europe
KW - Forest governance
KW - Power shift
KW - Governance transformation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094195992&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102317
DO - 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102317
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85094195992
SN - 1389-9341
VL - 121
JO - Forest Policy and Economics
JF - Forest Policy and Economics
M1 - 102317
ER -