Public participation: A need of forest planning

IForest

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 216-226

  Bruña García, Xabier ^a   Marey Pérez, Manuel Francisco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Collaborative decision making; Forest planning; Models of public participation; Participative planning; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904068352     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19717458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3832/ifor0979-007     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. Aasetre J (2006). Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 81-92. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2004.06.001.
2. Acuña S, Juristo N, Recio B (1997). Knowledge-based system for generating administrative grant alternatives applying the IDEAL methodology. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 18: 1-28. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1699(97)00015-X.
3. Alexander SE (2000). Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize: the Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27 (4): 341-350. doi: 10.10 17/S0376892900000394.
4. Alexander JC, Thompson K (2008). A contemporary introduction to sociology: culture and society in transition. The Yale Cultural Sociology Series, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO, USA.
5. Ananda J, Herath G (2003). The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5: 13-26. doi: 10.1016/ S1389-9341(02)00043-6.
6. Ananda J, Herath G (2005). Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory. Ecological Economics 55: 408-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12. 015.
7. Ananda J, Herath G (2008). Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning. Ecological Economics 65: 325-335. doi: 10.10 16/j.ecolecon.2007.06.024.
8. Ananda J, Herath G (2009). A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics 68: 2535-2548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010.
9. Anderson C, Bezley K, Boxall J (2009). Lessons for PPGIS from the application of a decisionsupport tool in the Nova Forest Alliance of Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 2081-2089. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2007.08.031.
10. Arnstein SR (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35: 216-224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977 225.
11. Arrow KJ, Sen AK, Suzumura K (2002). Handbook of social choice and welfare (vol. 1). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
12. Atmis E, Özden S, Lise W (2007). Public participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecological Economics 62: 352-359. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.20 06.07.002.
13. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002). Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the future, Washington, DC, USA.
14. Belton S, Stewart TS (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, USA.
15. Berninger K, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2009). Effects of presenting forest simulation results on the forest values and attitudes of forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 126-133. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.002.
16. Beverly J, Uto K, Wilkes J, Bothwell P (2008). Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: An internet-based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 289-303. doi: 10.1139/X07-149.
17. Booth A, Halseth G (2011). Why the public thinks natural resources public participation processes fail: a case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use Policy 28: 898-906. doi: 10.10 16/j.landusepol.2011.03.005.
18. Brody SD, Cash SB (2004). Why resource-based industries should participate in collaborative ecosystem approaches to management: a concepiForest tual framework. Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. Technical Report No. 04-01R, Texas A&M. University, College Station, TX, USA.
19. Brody SD, Cash SB, Dyke J, Thornton S (2006). Motivations for the forestry industry to participate in collaborative ecosystem management initiatives. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 123-134. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.002.
20. Brown G, Reed P (2009). Public Participation GIS: a new method for national forest planning. Forest Science 55: 166-182.
21. Brown G, Weber X (2011). Public Participation GIS: a new method for national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 102: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.003.
22. Buchy M, Hoverman S (2000). Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics 1: 15-25. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(00)00006-X.
23. Cantiani MG (2012). Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest 5: 72-82. doi: 10.3832/ifor06 02-009.
24. Conrad E, Cassar LF, Christie M, Fazey I (2011). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29: 761-782 doi: 10.1068/c10137.
25. Côté M, Bouthillier L (2002). Assessing the effect of public involvement processes in forest management in Quebec. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 213-225. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)0000 2-3.
26. Collier MJ, Scott M (2009). Conflicting rationalities, knowledge and values in scarred landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 267-277. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.12.002.
27. Cost Action FP0804 (2010). Forests Management Decisión Support Systems (FORSYS). [online] URL: http://fp0804.emu.ee/wiki/index.php/Participatory_processes
28. Clement JM, Cheng AS (2010). Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography 31: 393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.001.
29. Díaz L, Granell C, Huerta J, Gould M (2012). Web 2.0 broker: a standards-based service for spatio-temporal search of crowd-sourced information. Applied Geography 35: 448-459. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.09.008.
30. Díaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2008). Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3222-3241. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco. 2008.01.038.
31. Díaz-Balteiro L, Gonzalez-Pachón J, Romero C (2009). Forest management with multiple criteria and multiple stakeholders: An application to two public forests in Spain. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 24: 87-93. doi: 10.1080/02827 580802687440.
32. Domínguez G, Carbonell X, Plana E, Pecurul M, Rodríguez I (2005). Participación pública en el Plan General de Política Forestal en Cataluña [Public participation in the Forest Policy General Plan of Catalonia]. In: Proceedings of the "IV. Congreso Forestal Español". Zaragoza (Spain) 26-30.Sep 2005, pp. 7. [in Spanish]
33. Domínguez Torres G (2008). A wish, a fear and a complaint: understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research 130: 435-450. doi: 10.1007/s10342-009-0332-0.
34. Domínguez G, Shannon M (2009). Understanding forest owners in a Mediterranean context. Constructing theory through descriptive and interpretational analysis. A study case in Catalonia. Msc Thesis, University of Freiburg, Germany.
35. Dovie DBK (2003). Whose involvement? Can hierarchical valuation scheme intercede for participatory methods for evaluating secondary forest resource use? Forest Policy and Economics 5: 265-283. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00066-7.
36. Düzgün M (2003). Advancement of forest village communities through effective participation and partnership in state-owned forestry administration: Turkey's case. In: Proceedings of the "XIIth World Forestry Congress. Québec City (Canada) 21-28. Sep 2003. [online] URL: http://www.-fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0223-C1.HTM.
37. Elcome D, Baines J (1999). Steps to success. Working with residents and neighbours to develop and implement plans for protected areas. IUCN, Commission on Education and Communication, European Committee for EE, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 42.
38. Elsasser P (2002). Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a national forest program. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 291-300. doi: 10.1016/S13 89-9341(02)00071-0.
39. Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013). A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34: 332-341 doi: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2013.04.006.
40. Garmendia E, Stagl S (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics 69: 1712-1722. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027.
41. Germain RH, Floyd DW, Stehman SV (2001). Public perceptions of the USDA. Forest Service public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics 3: 113-124. doi: 10.1016/S1389-93 41(01)00065-X.
42. Gómez-Vázquez I, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Marey-Pérez MF (2009). Conflicts as enhancers or barriers to the management of privately owned common land: a method to analyze the role of conflicts on a regional basis. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 617-627. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.20 09.09.001.
43. Glück P (1999). National Forest Programmes-significance of a forest policy framework. In: "Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Programmes" (Glueck P, OEsten G, Schanz H, Colz K-R eds). European Forest Institute Proceedings, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 39-51.
44. Hajkowicz SA, Young M, Wheeler S, MacDonald DH, Young D (2000a). Supporting decisions: understanding natural resource management assessment techniques. A. Report to the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, pp. 136. [online] URL: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4763707_Supporting_Decisions_Understanding_natural_resource_management_assessment_techniques/file/72e7e5228ea72e5e62.pdf
45. Hajkowicz, SA, Wheeler S, Young D (2000b). An evaluation of options for the Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation areas using multiple criteria analysis. In: Proceedings of the "Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference". Canberra (Australia) 12-15. Feb 2002, pp. 13. [online] URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/125098/2/Hajkowic.pdf
46. Hansmann R, Koellner T, Scholz RW (2006). Influence of consumers' socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood products with sustainability labels. Policy and Economics 8: 239-250. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2004.06.005.
47. Hellström E (2001). Conflict cultures-qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs 2, pp. 109.
48. Hiedanpää J (2005). The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in southwest Finland. Ecological Economics 55: 485-498. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2004.12.007.
49. Higgs G, Berry R, Kidner D, Langford M (2008). Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: prospects and challenges. Land Use Policy 25: 596-607. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.12.001.
50. Hiltunen V, Kangas J, Pykäläinen J (2008). Voting methods in strategic forest planning experiences from Metsähallitus. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 117-127. doi: 10.1016/j.for pol.2007.06.002.
51. Hiltunen V, Kurttila M, Leskinen P, Pasanen K, Pykäläinen J (2009). Mesta: an internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.-forpol.2008.07.004.
52. Hjortsø CN (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR-an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research 152: 667-683. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00065-1.
53. ILO (2000). Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America: Report of the team of specialists on participation in forestry. Report WP 163, FAO/ECE/ILO. Joint Committee Team, International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.
54. Janse G (2008). Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe-a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 183-194. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.001.
55. Janse G, Konijnendijk C (2007). Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry-experiences from the Neighbourwoods project. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6: 23-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug. 2006.09.005.
56. Kangas J (1994). An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 70: 75-88. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(94)90076-0.
57. Kangas J, Store R (2003). Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 89-101. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)001 25-1.
58. Kangas J, Kangas A (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management-the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 133-143. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.023.
59. Kangas J, Store R, Kangas R (2005). Socioecological landscape planning approach and multicriteria acceptability analysis in multiple-purpose forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 603-614. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.001.
60. Kangas A, Laukkanen S, Kangas J (2006). Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management-a review. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 77-92. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2005.02.004.
61. Kangas A, Saarinen N, Saarikoski H, Leskinen LA, Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2010). Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 213-222. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006.
62. Kant S, Lee S (2004). A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 215-227. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.005.
63. Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova I, Buttoud G (2006). Assessment of an iterative process: The double spiral of re-designing participation. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 529-541. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2005.07.010.
64. Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1: 41-52. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0.
65. Laukkanen S, Palander T, Kangas J, Kangas A (2005). Evaluation of the multicriteria approval method for timber-harvesting group decision support. Silva Fennica 39: 249-264.
66. Leskinen LA (2004). Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 605-618. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00009-1.
67. Leskinen P, Kangas J (2005). Multi-criteria natural resource management with preferentially dependent decision criteria. Journal of Environmental Management 77: 244-251. doi: 10.10 16/j.jenvman.2005.03.008.
68. Lexer MJ, Vacik H, Palmetzhofer D, Oitzinger G (2005). A decision support tool to improve forestry extension services for small private landowners in southern Austria. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49: 81-102. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.004.
69. Marey-Pérez MF, Rodríguez-Vicente V, Crecente-Maseda R (2006). Using GIS to measure changes in temporal and spatial dynamics of forestland: experiences from north-west Spain. Forestry 79: 409-423. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpl027.
70. Marey-Pérez MF, Rodríguez-Vicente V (2009). Forest transition in northern Spain: local responses on large-scale programmes of field afforestation. Land Use Policy 26: 139-156. doi: 10.10 16/j.landusepol.2008.02.004.
71. Martin A (2003). On knowing what trees to plant: local and expert perspectives in the Western Ghats of Karnataka. Geoforum 34: 57-69. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00075-1.
72. Martin WE, Shields DJ, Tolwinski B, Kent B (1996). An application of social choice theory to U.S.D.A. Forest Service decision making. Journal of Policy Modeling 18 (6): 603-621. doi: 10.1016/S0161-8938(95)00132-8.
73. Martins H, Borges JG (2007). Addressing collaborative planning methods and tools in forest management. Forest Ecology Management 248: 107-118. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.039.
74. Mau-Crimmins T, Steigure JE, Dennis D (2005). AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with university students. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 501-514. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.08.001.
75. McCool SF, Guthrie K (2001). Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Society and Natural Resources 14: 309-323. doi: 10.1080/713847694.
76. McDaniels TL, Roessler C (1998). Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach. Ecological Economics 27: 299-312. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00 005-6.
77. Meitner MJ, Sheppard SRJ, Cavens D, Gandy R, Picard P, Harshaw H, Harrison D (2005). The multiple roles of environmental data visualization in evaluating alternative forest management strategies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49: 192-205. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2005. 03.002.
78. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2002). Enhancing participatory planning of community-managed forest using problem structuring models and approaches: experiences from a case study. Working Paper GAM-2003-1, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA.
79. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2003). Qualitative multicriteria approaches to assessing indicators of sustainable forest resource management. Forest Ecology and Management 174: 329-343. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00044-0.
80. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2005). Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 145-156. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.024.
81. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R (2006). Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: overview of soft system dynamics models and applications. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 179-196. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005. 06.006.
82. Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management 230: 1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006. 03.023.
83. Mose I, Weixlbauner N (2007). A new paradigm for protected areas in Europe? In: "Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards a new model for the 21st century" (Mose I, Weixelbumer N eds). Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp. 3-20.
84. Niemelä, J, Young J, Alard D, Askasibar M, Henle K, Johnson R, Kurttila M, Larsson T, Matouch S, Nowicki P, Paiva R, Portoghesi L, Smulders R, Stevenson A, Tartes U, Watt A (2005). Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe Forest. Policy and Economics 7: 877-890. doi: 10.1016/j.for pol.2004.04.005.
85. Ojha HR, Cameron J, Kumar C (2009). Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 365-374. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2008.11.003.
86. Panagopoulos T (2009). Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics 68: 2485-2489. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009. 05.006.
87. Penker M (2009). Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy 26: 947-953. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.007.
88. Pocewicz A, Schnitzer R, Nielsen-Pincus M (2010). The social geography of southern Wyoming: Important places, development, and natural resource management, The Nature Conservancy, Lander, WY, USA, pp. 16. [online] URL: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/ states/wyoming/files/sciencemappingsocialvalues2010.pdf
89. Pretty JN (1994). Alternative systems of inquiry for sustainable agriculture. IDS. Bulletin 25 (2): 37-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.1994.mp2500 2004.x
90. Pretty J, Scoones IC, Guijt I, Thompson J (1995). A trainers guide for participatory learning and action. IIED, London, UK.
91. Primmer E, Kyllönen S (2006). Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 838-853. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2005.01.002.
92. Purnomo H, Mendoza G, Prabhu R (2004). Model of collaborative planning of community-managed resources based on qualitative soft systems approach. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 16: 106-131.
93. Richard T, Burns S (1998). Beyond "scoping". Citizens and San Juan National forest managers, learning together. Journal of Forestry: 39-43. [online] URL: http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/ collaborative_processes/Beyond_Scoping.pdf
94. Saarikoski H, Tikkanen J, Leskinen LA (2010). Public participation in practice: assessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in northern Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 349-356. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2010.02.006.
95. Saaty TL (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234-281. doi: 10.1016/ 0022-2496(77)90033-5.
96. Saaty TL (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, pp. 287.
97. Scardina AV, Mortimer MJ, Dudley L (2007). Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA. Forest Service public involvement processes. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 883-902. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.07.003.
98. Schmoldt DL, Peterson DL (2000). Analytical group decision making in natural resources: methodology and application. Forest Science 46: 62-75.
99. Seely B, Nelson J, Wells R, Peter B, Meitner M, Anderson A, Harshaw H, Sheppard S, Bunnell FL, Kimmins H, Harrison D (2004). The application of a hierarchical, decision-support system to evaluate multi-objective forest management strategies: a case study in northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 283-305. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco. 2004.05.048.
100. Selman P (2004). Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47: 365-395. doi: 10.1080/09640 56042000216519.
101. Sewell WRD, O'Riordan T (1976). Natural resources for a democratic society: public participation in decision-making. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA.
102. Shannon M (1999). Moving from the limits and problems of rational planning toward a collaborative and participatory planning approach. In: "Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Programmes" (Glück P, Oesten G, Schanz H, Colz K-R eds). European Forest Institute Proceedings, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 139-151.
103. Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005). Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 171-187. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032.
104. Shindler B, Neburka J (1997). Public participation in forest planning. Journal of Forestry 17-19.
105. Shindler BA, Brunson M, Stankey GH (2002). Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-537, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA. Forest Service, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 73. [online] URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr537.pdf
106. Silvennionen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O (2001). Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape Urban Planning 56: 11-20. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)001 63-3.
107. Sipilä M, Tyrväinen L (2005). Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.06.002.
108. Stenseke M (2009). Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26: 214-223. doi: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2008.01.005.
109. Stewart JMP, Sinclair AJ (2007). Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents and government. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 9 (2): 161-183. doi: 10.1142/S1464333207002 743.
110. Suárez de Vivero J, Rodríguez Mateos JC, Florido del Corral D (2008). The paradox of public participation in fisheries governance. The rising number of actors and the devolution process. Marine Policy 32: 319-325. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol. 2007.06.005.
111. Sugimura K, Howard TE (2008). Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 161-173. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2007.08.005.
112. Swedeen P (2006). Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics 57: 190-208. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2005.04.003.
113. Tikkanen J, Isokääntä T, Pykäläinen, Leskinen P (2006). Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a northern Finnish case area. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 139-152. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol. 2005.04.001.
114. Tourain A (1969). La societé post-industrialle. Bibliothèque Médiations 61, Denoël, Paris, France.
115. Tuler S, Webler T (1999). Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources 12: 437-453. doi: 10.1080/089419299279524.
116. Tyrväinen L, Gustavsson R, Konijnendijk C, Ode A (2006). Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 811-823. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.12.005.
117. Twery MJ, Hornbeck JW (2001). Incorporating water goals into forest management decisions at a local level. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 87-93. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)005 08-9.
118. Vacik H, Lexer MJ (2001). Application of a spatial decision support system in managing the protection forests of Vienna for sustained yield of water resources. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 65-76. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00) 00506-5.
119. Vainikainen N, Kangas A, Kangas J (2008). Empirical study on voting power in participatory forest planning. Journal of Environmental Management 88: 173-180. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2007.02.004.
120. Weber N, Christophersen T (2002). The influence of nongovernmental organizations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00070-3.
121. Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15: 443-463. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E
122. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 416.